User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 34

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.

Hi, Ronhjones. Regarding this, why did you think I had insufficiently warned the editor? As

@

Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and on the fifth occasion we would expect the report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism NB: Only in very extreme vandalism would we endorse the use of the 4im warnings. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

But I think that the user was given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior. And the user did eventually stop. I don't think that I needed to template the editor more than once just for the AIV report to work. In any case, thanks for explaining. At this point in time, the editor hasn't continued their disruption.

talk

) 01:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@

Flyer22 Reborn: New editors (especially IPs), don't even know they have a talk page, often need a few warnings to realise that there is a message for them Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

19:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I know that this is the case for some or many, but I don't think it should take three or more warnings to stop IP disruption. I'm not stating this in regard to you solely, but in regard to any such protocol. I know that administrators typically expect to see significant disruption before blocking an IP. I should have pointed out that this IP was disrupting two different pages.

talk

) 21:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of instances where Ronbot has modified a {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} template with "human=yes" multiple times. See File:The Simpsons season 18.png, and File:The Dark Tower teaser poster.jpg for couple of examples. I'm guessing this should not be happening. -- Whpq (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The images where this has happened are listed in the Media section at the bottom of Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls - X201 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Whpq and X201: Obviously a small, but annoying bug. I'll stop it running tonight, and examine over the week-end. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Fix was easier than expected. Dummy run with no saves was good. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Whpq and X201: Confirm last night's run did not add a multiple "human=yes" to any file. The existing ones will vanish as the files are processed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones, another editor requested this task be re-disabled, I've done it pending additional review. Feel free to revert me if approriate. AN link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_disable_User:Theo.27s_Little_Bot_task_1. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@

user:Stefan2 - I therefore started up the old Theo bot as an alternative, until DatGuy has time to repair his bot. As you may remember we have DatBot6 as Theo's bot is not reliable to do a full run - it does it's tasks OK, but always ends up stopping early. I'm hoping that Theo's bot will attempt the files failed by DatBot, and see if it does the same action(s) - if it does then there is a basic error in the maths statements, if it doesn't then there must be a difference between the two bots. I will revert, unless we have a consensus to disable - I have replied on AN as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

16:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just using extra caution in case there was more commons related headaches falling over. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

23:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your bot kept one old revision. Should we keep a list of these exceptions somewhere? --

@

Stefan2: Just let me know if you find one, and I'll see why - still running with lots of "print" statements to be able to backtrack - seems we have an error with this entry - I found 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\u2019' in position 26: ordinal not in range(128) - it's the print statement that falls over! I'll comment this print statement out. not the first time that print has been annoying with dodgy letters! I'll run a search over all the log files to date for any similar error, in case there is another lurking. Fixed file manually. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

22:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Think I need to write a print routine that does not render odd ascii charaters. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to use print string.encode('utf-8') to encode your Unicode string as UTF-8 before you can print it to screen. Python reads print string as equivalent to print string.encode('ascii'), which gives you that error message if at least one character in the file name isn't included in the ASCII character set.

Also,

Stefan2 (talk

) 20:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: Agreed - found a sub on the net and added to code - see top of User:RonBot/Source2. Fixed the file - even the "rescaled" script goes awry at times! Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ron. I have written a database query that looks for oversized, non-free bitmap (i.e. exceeding 450x450) images. The results are available here. Thought this might helpful to your work. Regards, FASTILY 08:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fastily: Thanks for list - since autumn 2016, the developers upgraded the normal search engine, so I have been using that - see meta:Tech/News/2016/47 - second item in Recent changes. One can use a fileres:>xxx parameter to find files with a file resolution > xxx - where xxx is the square root of the pixel count. See User:Ronhjones/Non Free Reduce Data for where I am in regards to the overall non-free files. Using 324 as fileres:, there are still 126,256 files that are over guideline and potential candidates for reduction. Your list is therefore, of course, mainly new files, but there are a few old ones that the Wiki search did not pick up - even wiki software is not perfect! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, DatBot6 is down at present - waiting for User:DatGuy to have some free time to fix it. Resorting back to Theo's old bot, but as usual it runs about 25-100 files and falls over - I suspect that might be due to leaving temp image files on the system and maybe running out of space. Also waiting for a conclusion to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Ronhjones_is_essentially_botting before I start any large volume of tagging. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! If you have any suggestions on how I could make this report more useful, then please let me know. Best, FASTILY 18:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

18:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• 168.11.191.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I believe I missed you at

Not at all.  Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ronhjones. I was wondering if you could please look into this editor - 67.165.17.94 - due to their constant disruptive editing? They have been disruptively adding material either without citations or ones that do not support their claims, while constantly replacing their information whenever other editors remove it, without any explanation (other than claiming its correct) nor any attempt at any discussion. Here are two examples of pages they have been disruptively editing The Left (Germany) and Alliance 90/The Greens. I would greatly appreciate if you could please look into this. Thank you for your time. Helper201 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather has already protected one page, I've done the other Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Although as seen via their page, they have been doing this on many other pages as well, with no sign that they are about to stop. Any chance you could look into blocking them please? Helper201 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk page is a bit low on warnings to jump in with block, and politics is not really my subject Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! I just re-launched the

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject . There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

I ran into File:Desktop App Installer.png today. It is downsized so badly that it is of no use. But if you could recover its former revision, I could probably crop black spaces from it and then downsize it in way that it remains informative.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The file has a lot of unnecessary black space. Would it be possible to remove some of that black space? I think a problem with many software screenshots (both free and unfree screenshots) is that there's so much unimportant stuff (whitespace/blackspace) on the screenshots, making the important stuff too small to see on the thumbnail in the article. I think it reduces readability of the article if it's necessary to visit the file information page in order to see the image. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 13:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: Restored into the history for manual reduce - I expect Stefan's bot will tag it for revdel. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

18:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi!
Could you be kind enough to let me revive the SafeSquid page?
Thanks in advance
Simplyme777843 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Simplyme777843: Not my protection - talk to User:Ymblanter Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for blocking the user. I appreciate your work of administration. Keep it up!! You deserve 5 such barnstars for your interest in showing great efficiency in adminship. Thanks. SahabAliwadia 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Because your system has no notifications, I did not spot that any of these were reduced with their originals deleted until way after the fact. Please revert -

• File:Final Fight 3 - Gameplay.png
• File:Ranger X - Gameplay.png
• File:David Crane's Amazing Tennis - Gameplay.png
• File:Final Fight 3 - Gameplay.png
• File:Starcommand2013battle.jpg
• File:Star Fox - Gameplay.png
• File:BaltronJP031986.jpg
  • n
    10:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@

Village Pump

.

I see nothing wrong with the following files - they are still properly identifiable as what they are - all the text is still readable. There is nothing there that is so corrupted that would suggest a bigger size is necessary. Suggest you bring them to

Files for discussion

for a consensus opinion.

• File:Final Fight 3 - Gameplay.png
• File:David Crane's Amazing Tennis - Gameplay.png
• File:Star Fox - Gameplay.png
• File:BaltronJP031986.jpg

The following file is perhaps not so clear and I will revert that

• File:Starcommand2013battle.jpg

The following file was not processed by me or my bot, you will need to discuss with the deleting admin user:Sphilbrick

• File:Ranger X - Gameplay.png - in my view it's another one where all the text is still readable. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion that image looks fine now. I think we need a pretty strong case to violate our normal rule of 0.1 megapixels in this doesn't look like it would qualify for an exception.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I note that
  Mega Drive
  game. Those games use a screen resolution of 320×240 pixels. I note that the old revision has a resolution of 640×480 pixels, meaning that the old revision is upscaled: someone has multiplied the pixels by four, but this didn't add any non-free content. It was later changed to 365×273 pixels by a bot, but that's still larger than 320×240 pixels, so I presume that the bot didn't remove any non-free content.

WP:NFCC#3

to a greater extent than the human upload, or vice versa.

The logs suggest that the file has been reduced and overwritten multiple times, but the file revision history is unavailable, so it's hard to tell what's happened. Can the file revision history be restored? That is, can you switch from the old revision deletion system to the new one? --

Stefan2 (talk

) 19:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: Full history restored - I've revdel the images as there is nothing useful to keep visible Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

22:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You chose to automate the deletion without automating notifications. Please restore the other images. They were low resolution images that you needlessly reduced because you did not take any time to actually evaluate them, like the Mega Drive, the Super Nintendo cannot output high resolution images. -

n

09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no system for requiring notification - otherwise the template would have instructions to do so (like the deletion templates have). As

user:stefan2 said - those games were originally at 320×240 pixels, emulators and later machine would probably upscale to 640x480, as uploaded. But the reduced size is still larger than the original game size. Therefore I see no reason to revert. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

17:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Reg full protection of this, just want to let you know that one side is a sock of this, I've blocked an account and an ip in the past few hours. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 00:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Came from a report at AIV - obvious warring going on - one person asking for discussion and the other just removing large chunks of data without any consensus... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You tagged this as non-free reduce but actually US law applied at this time. So can you please restore the higher resolution before moving it to the commons? Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! @Rohnjones I noticed that you increased the protection level of Indian Administrative Service to prevent disruptive editing/edit warring. However, in my opinion, the current protection level is too high (even though it's time bound), and limits the no. of potential editors to a select few. So, can you reduce the protection level, to say, extended confirmed or autoconfirmed?
Regards, SshibumXZ
SshibumXZ (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That is a fairly standard action following edit warring - semi-protection would not have worked in this case. Extended confirmed cannot be done until semi has been tried! However since the edit war editor has been locked for socking, I can happily reduce it to semi-protection - it will slow up the socks. Please let me know if it goes bad, then we can apply extended confirmed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And, I will be sure to inform you, if any kind of sock-activity happens.
SshibumXZ (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you mind if I unblock this IP? It looks like the AIV report was based on an edit filter hit for a specific banned editor (BKFIP). This isn't him - it's a false positive. The normal user if that IP has made a request on my talk page. Kuru (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kuru: If you are happy with the request then feel free to unblock. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will resolve. Kuru (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I made a discovery today: File:Altacast Main Window.png is actually a free image. It was mislabeled as non-free.

I was wondering if you could undelete its original larger revision, please.

Thanks.

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:  Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: Ooops, it's me. I was changing some supporting files around, and did not do all the replaces required. Running now to check all is well. Thanks. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

On another note - there are about 650 GIFs in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. I'll try and do them by month end. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

22:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reduced version of the file seems to be broken: the bottom half of the image is missing. I'd suggest reverting and re-reducing. --

@

Stefan2: I just spotted that! Very odd - I have Explorer open, set to extra large icons, compare before and after and then upload - in this case something odd happened with the download - and naturally the reduced one was identical! Downloaded again and fixed with photoshop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

22:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ronhjones, I've uploaded a logo but the background of the image is not fitting for Wiki standards. I don't know who else to ask, so I'm asking you. Could you fix the background of this logo and give it the proper background. That would be really nice. Thank you in advance. Akocsg (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Is the blue supposed to be clear? Is that what you mean? Or cropped (and also reduce to NFCC size) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Yes it's supposed to be clear, like the other logos in similar articles. If the size is a problem, you can adjust that too. Akocsg (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Fixed, not a bad result in the end. Changing the background to white make a very rough outer circle - so that removed and a new one added. The star had a ragged blue edges after background changed, manually used a white brush at 2px wide to clean it up. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget to add it to the article! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Great. Thank you very much. Akocsg (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed a minor issue though. If you compare it for instance with this logo, than you can see that the background is different. It makes the background in the actual article unseen. The logo of Fenerbahce shows the white background in the article. Can you fix that? Akocsg (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: yes, The difference is one is transparent and one is white. I'll have to look up how to get PhotoShop to do transparent - not something I've done before. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: All right. Please inform me of the result. Akocsg (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: As always, it's easy once you know how. Select "magic eraser", click background. Thanks heavens for the internet. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thank you very much. Akocsg (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

19:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• 181.130.89.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Was this supposed to be an escalating block duration? Regards. 174.135.40.152 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thinks, Odd Twinkle didn't show last blocks...! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for reducing the images I uploaded. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Hello, Ron.

How do you do?

Several Wikipedia articles (Windows XP, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows Server 2003, Windows CE 5.0) are currently devoid of a logo, even though they had one in the past. Someone thought the logo used on them was free and moved them to Commons. The Commons admins, however, didn't agree with that person and deleted the logo. (Well, actually, logos. Many of them. They did a thorough job of reading the copyright laws very loosely!) And now, there is no appropriate logos, neither on Commons nor on Wikipedia.

I was wondering if you could help return to the NFCC-approved status. File:Windows logo - 2002.svg, if undeleted, can be used for all these articles.

Can you help with that?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: No problem, done. Commons is picky (I'm admin there as well!). I've add the "Do not move to commons" template. I'll let you put it in the articles. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well. Thanks a bunch!

I wouldn't call Commons picky; it was clearly a copyvio. It is just that the violators irk me and the recurrence was troubling. For a while, I couldn't bring myself up to send yet another message to the Commons admin and ask for the image AGAIN! I had done it so many times already.

I myself ended up discussing the use of one such logo on so many articles here, in the old copyright noticeboard (which is now replaced by WP:FFD). I had a heated discussion with another admin too! What we discovered much later was that the person who had started the controversial discussion was a sockpuppet of Betacommand! (Sigh!) We simply don't have enough respect for copyright. Anyway, if anyone pinged you and complained about so many usages, just let me know so that I can dig the old consensus up.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Betacommand - we'll let that sleeping dog lie... Since it was moved to commons and then deleted, there's no problem undeleting it - it should really have gone to c:Category:Requested fair use deletes to get moved back to en-wiki by c:User:Commons fair use upload bot - not that many users know that system, I think. The problem with all logos on commons is deciding if it falls foul of the c:COM:TOO - which varies considerably with country. In my view this one is just on the edge - I would have leaned to keep for a US logo, it's a simple shape with just a touch of shading, obviously the others thought the shading was just a bit too far. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Does that bot even work? The original operator was

Stefan2 (talk

) 22:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Good question. The bot may be dead - but I do see the odd file in c:Category:Requested fair use deletes (often for quite a while!) - there probably is not enough activity to warrant time spending on it, maybe quicker just to move the odd file manually. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you pinged the wrong person. ;p —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Your new uploads to

@

Stefan2: Occasionally the upload fails and I get a black pic (about 1 in 200 - bad luck tonight... - I've got the CPU at a high rate on other stuff, maybe that's an issue or just a rough connection - joy of living in a village!) - that's another reason for RonBot2 to be run only in Supervised mode, so (assuming approved), I will run it for a bit, then check all the uploads are OK. I use link-ninja to upload the files into separate tabs from the special-contribution list Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

19:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

15:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ron, I was wondering if you would be able to tell me if the original file uploaded at File:University of Virginia seal.svg is the same (excluding the colors) as the current version? Another user and I are having a debate on which seal to use and I wanted to to use this information when I discuss it with him (since how he is the original uploader of this file). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 14:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I can't see any difference - ignoring the colours. The original is not black and white - it looks a very dark grey and white (PhotoShop says RGB 35,31,32 (decimal numbers)). I tried two screen grabs and used PhotoShop to compare as an overlay, and all the details seem to line up. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Should the template sort GIF files into the bot category now, or do you still need them to be in the manual category for some time? --

@

Stefan2: It would make more sense to have them in the main cat and then be able drop them into the manual one if there is a problem. As User:DatGuy with DatBot6 is using basically Theo's code, then DatBot6 should leave the GIFs alone. I've had a total of 5 bad reductions (that must be about 1%), where all I got was a blank image after Pillow had reduced (so I didn't upload it). I've added a bit of extra code, not to upload where the new GIF is much smaller than expected - that will trap such problems - I can then change that file to manual reduction only. Can you fix the template to drop the GIFs into the main cat? Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Stefan2 (talk
  ) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @
    Stefan2: Probably have to wait until Joe's Null Bot sorts them out - MediaWiki would take forever in my view. JNB#8 runs once a day. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)
    21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Doesn't that bot only fix the files in
      Stefan2 (talk
      ) 21:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
      • You could be right. Let's see what transpires :-( Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
        • @
          Non-free manual gif reduce}} - which puts it into the "manual" reduction cat - as your suggestion. Also changed code to point to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests, and all GIFs that were in there have been done as well. I'll do a search for oversized untagged GIFs later and tag them, once the bot runs again, that will be all the GIF files done (for now!) Ronhjones  ^(Talk)
          18:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could restore the previously deleted revision of File:Mac OS X Messages screenshot.png. I intend to do a higher quality work of downsizing it.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:. Done. I've made the penultimate one current - have a go at making a better version if you like. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But this one times, I was okay with DASHBot-chosen size. I just cropped away the whitespace.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ron, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 21:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ron, You've recently flagging some of my photos as copyright violations presumably because you backwards image searched them and they came up on panoramio. Those photos you found on panoramio are also my photos. The account is lebagelboy (adam L) which was a nickname I had back in school. Is there anyway I can prove these photos are mine so they don't get removed from wikipedia? I'd like to keep them freely available for people to use if possible.

Regards,

Adam

@Adamlebaigue: You hit the classic problem - always upload here first. Best solution (if possible still) is change the license on panoramio to CC-BY-SA - otherwise head over to c:COM:CONSENT - be warned the queue is about 60 days! If deleted and you change the license then head over to c:Commons:Undeletion requests to get them undeleted, if you go via OTRS then they will undelete them when approved. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You might find this useful:- https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18908

It was a query to find very large non-free files, something you seem to be doing plenty of work on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks, I'll have a look. Currently using the latest mw:Help:CirrusSearch system (which added file size support in November), so https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=2000&offset=0&profile=images&search=incategory%3A"All+non-free+media"+fileres%3A>324+filetype%3Abitmap will show every non-free image over 105000 bytes, pages of 2000 images at a time (need to copy and paste into browser bar!) - still 124,190 images to look at... Leave out "+filetype%3Abitmap" to see svg/pdf/tif/gif/etc. as well - then it's 127,795... Will be busy for quite a while - once DatBot6 is up and running again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And this was all orphaned Non-free files (https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18899), there used to be a bot that tagged these up as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: User:Stefan2bot2 does the tagging of orphaned images - It's still running. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

My bot tags files with {{

Stefan2 (talk

) 22:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm also running a database report tracking files of size < 450x450: Wikipedia:Database reports/Large fair-use images. -FASTILY 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: All great stuff, but unless we want to really fill Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests with about 100K+ files (is that a good idea? - I can fill this up in about 3 months, if that is what you would like), we will have to wait until user:DatGuy gets DatBot6 up and running again. Currently the old Theo (Special:Contributions/Theo's_Little_Bot) bot is doing about 300 files a day, and I am doing somewhat shy of 100 (Special:Contributions/Ronjones) as semi-automatic, so the reduction of the cat is rather slow. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that

Stefan2 (talk

) 23:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

However, since your bot can handle GIF files, I suppose that the category could be filled up with lots of GIF files, but most files are PNG or JPG. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 23:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: There are no GIFs left to do :-) Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ronhjones, you recently tagged File:PicassoGuernica.jpg for image size reduction and a couple of hours later a bot reduced the size. The larger revision's size was already a reduced size that had previously been quite carefully considered at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and subsequently at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Would you consider reverting to the revision before you tagged it for size reduction? —RP88 ^(talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@

Files for Discussion and we can see if the guideline applies to all images (which is more sensible, in my view), or just newer images - but considering it's a legal thing to be able to be called "fair-use", I can't see that using an old out of date policy is a good enough reason to exceed the current guideline. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

19:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Existing policy at

WP:Image resolution does indeed recommend 100,000 pixels for common needs, but also says sizes as large as 1 megapixel are acceptable, with close review. Before reduction, the file was ~180,000 pixels, well below 1 megapixel. The original review was, admittedly, many years ago. But this file was just at FFD, only two weeks ago. The discussion of the image size at the FFD was tangential, but it was mentioned. Are you overturning the result of that FFD? I don't intend to be confrontational, I'm just curious about how this process works. —RP88 ^(talk

) 07:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@RP88: The number of non-free images at 1Mp can be counted on one hand - they are rare. In fact the number of allowed images over the guideline, is very small (just 230 - all in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction - they are there as the "standard" reduction has corrupted/distorted the image too much to be useful - compared with 463,000 images at guideline or less, and 127,000 images to be evaluated. I think the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_September_9#File:PicassoGuernica.jpg did not really address the actual size, more about the comparison between the existing image and the new well oversized image - User:Fastily's first comments were to reduce the big version, which would have had the same result. I see no harm in a new FFD to properly resolve the size issue. If it is decided to keep the 180,000 pixel image then we can set that up with the {{non-free no reduce}} template, and it should remain at the desired size. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. An image I created and uploaded was deleted (File:Diagram of selected characters in the novel Doctor Zhivago by Pasternak.jpg). You posted it for discussion on September 9 then someone else deleted it after zero discussion. I had put a detailed fair use analysis in the appropriate fields underneath the image, and it had been on WP for 2+ years. Can you please see that it is restored, or, if not, provide an explanation for the deletion? Thanks!Drochtegang (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang: The discussion was at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_September_9#File:Diagram_of_selected_characters_in_the_novel_Doctor_Zhivago_by_Pasternak.jpg - I was hoping for a bit more... - The image does not lend itself well to a non-free image, we just cannot have such a large (some 30x guideline area) non-free image without some considerable compelling reasons - it would be one of the largest non-free images on Wikipedia. Since you created the file, then I do not see any reason for not having it as a free image - it's not copied from some book, there is no more data there than most of the plots of most books on Wikipedia. My suggestion would be to have it as a free image - we cannot do that unless you agree, at present you still hold all the copyright, although some might argue that it might fall under {{PD-textlogo}}. If you would be happy to make it a free image, then I can sort that out for you. I can't see it being an issue as a free image on commons (I am a commons admin as well). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the input. When I uploaded the image long ago, my understanding was that when I did so I was granting a CC license to the image automatically, which I was happy to do. Did I get that wrong? (This is the only image I have uploaded, so I am a novice.) I did not describe it as a free image because in my view Pasternak is a joint author under copyright law. I would argue that plot summaries on WP are jointly authored works as well, and they are permissible because of fair use, not because they are public domain/free. So that's why I didn't designate my image as PD: instead, it was CC-licensed with respect to my contributions, and fair use with respect to whatever portions are attributable to Pasternak. I am also happy to try to reduce the image size. It may be readable at a much lower pixel count -- when I uploaded it, I didn't think pixel size would be an issue (a topic I addressed in my fair use rationale). So what would be the best way forward? Should I try to reduce the pixel count, then re-upload? What is the guideline number for pixel count? Cheers,Drochtegang (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I realized I was a bit sloppy in my terminology in my previous post. I shouldn't have said I was a "joint author" because that requires both authors to intend that their work be combined, which obviously wasn't the case here. Instead, I should have said that my diagram (and WP plot summaries as well) are unlicensed derivative works. Apart from that terminology, though, the rest of the analysis remains the same. Thanks!Drochtegang (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang: Everything on a Wikipedia page (text) is CC-BY-SA-3.0 (as it says at bottom of every page) - no fair use text allowed, and can (and often is) copied all over the net, so plot summaries (so long as they are not a cut and paste of plot summery elsewhere) are all CC-BY-SA - and some go into serious detail! If you had a section in the article describing all the relationships it would not be a copyright issue - therefore a diagram should be the same. Your license was {{Non-free fair use|image has rationale=yes}}. Pasternak may have wrote the book, but he never constructed the diagram. Why not go for CC-BY-SA-4.0 and see how it goes, we can always fall back it something goes bonkers. As it stands I don't think you can get all that info in a reduced image to be anywhere near the guideline - and being well oversized, then you have to question, is the diagram indispensable. Pixel guideline is 100,000 pixels (not many pixels) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. In the U.S. (and I'm confident in most other countries as well), copyright protects derivative works, which are defined as any work "based upon one or more preexisting works", including an "abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." (17 USC 101 & 106) A plot summary on a WP page is a work "based upon" another work. The same is true of my diagram: it is a work based upon a pre-existing work (i.e. the novel Doctor Zhivago). Without Pasternak's creative expression, my diagram would be blank. I contributed expression by selecting some (but not all) of the characters, selecting some of the relationships between those characters, selecting certain types of relationships (sibling, patient, etc), selecting the colors of the connecting lines, arranging the names by generation, selecting the fonts, arranging the relationships in groups by generation, and so on. I am therefore the author of the derivative work but as I mentioned above, I of course do not have a license from the owner of the copyright in the novel (Pasternak, or whoever now owns the copyright). I therefore don't think I have the right to put the entire work under a CC-BY-SA license: I am only entitled to license the rights that I own. (Similarly, if someone claims to put a CC-BY-SA license on a plot summary, they are licensing something they only own part of, no?) And if fair use isn't allowed on WP, then why did WP require that I fill out several question fields underneath my image? Those questions seemed clearly designed to elicit a fair use rationale (portion of original taken (in my case, well below 1%), alternatives available etc.), and would be unnecessary if I owned all the rights. Perhaps it would help if you could direct me to a WP guideline that says no fair use is allowed on WP. (And btw I tried reducing the image, and you are right: the lowest it seems I can go without distortion is about 1.3M pixels, so that route won't work.) Thanks!Drochtegang (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang:I'm in UK and copyright is even stricter. I have been reading so much after your last message - but I think I might have found the answer - see c:Commons:Derivative_works#Text - namely Information itself, however, is not copyrightable, and you are free to rewrite it in your own words - just like, if I found a web page and copied the text to Wikipeida - it would be deleted, if I rewrote the whole page in my own words and then put that in Wikipedia - it would be allowed as it's not a copy, but all the information would still be there. I see your diagram as being a pictorial representation of the information on relationships. Yes?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. It is true that under US copyright law, "facts" are not copyrightable (but the "expression" of those facts is copyrightable). Additionally, some expression may be so bare-bones that it "merges" with the fact itself and thus becomes uncopyrightable: for example, I would say that one is free to copy the sentence "the population of New York City is 9 million people." However, generally speaking, courts have not accepted the argument that character names etc. in a book are "facts" for purposes of copyright law. Coincidentally, this argument was raised quite recently in a case in New York (on Sept. 7, 2017), and a federal judge rejected it. In that case, a publisher had issued very simplified versions of classic novels (including "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Breakfast at Tiffany's"), for children, without a license from the owners of the copyrights in the original novels. One argument raised by the publisher was "that the characters, plots, and settings in plaintiffs' Novels are merely 'a collection of made-up facts' or 'fictional facts,' and, since (historical or independently-existing) facts are not protected, these elements are not aspects of 'an author's original expression' subject to copyright.'" The judge rejected that argument, and cited some of the relevant cases: "This exercise in sophistry, however, which confuses the difference between historical or independently-existing facts and fictional details created by a novelist, finds no support in applicable law. As the Second Circuit has clearly stated, 'characters and events' that 'spring from the imagination' of authors are copyrightable, creative expression. See Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 139. Thus, the Copyright Act protects both the literal text describing, for example, Dr. Bowman and HAL, and the 'made-up facts' about Dr. Bowman and HAL. 'Unlike the facts in a phone book, which do not owe their origin to an act of authorship,' each 'fact' in defendants' Guides is really 'fictitious expression' created by plaintiffs' authors. Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 139. Because the 'characters and events' in defendants' Guides 'spring from the imagination," Capote, Hemingway, Kerouac, and Clarke, each Guide 'plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression.' Id. (citing Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991)) (discussing the distinction between 'discovered facts,' which do not 'owe their origin to an act of authorship' and thus are not protected by copyright, and 'created facts,' which constitute original, protected expression).'" The case is Penguin Random House v. Colting and you can find all of this at pages 11-12 here: https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/467693/53-0.html. A federal court reached the same result in 2008 when someone published a "Harry Potter Lexicon" that went into great detail: see http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2008/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-harry-potter-lexicon-case-jk-rowling-recovers-her-plums. However, it is important to note that court stated that "reference guides to works of literature should generally be encouraged by copyright law as they provide a benefit readers and students," and "certainly, the Lexicon must be permitted to refer to an object by its invented name and describe some of its invented attributes to fulfill its purpose as a reference work." The reason the defendant lost was solely because the defendant took too many direct passages from the original Harry Potter books. See pages 54-62 here: http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-09-08-Rowling%20Decision.pdf. It should be noted that when the judge said that reference guides should be encouraged, this was in his discussion of fair use. There is no statutory exception in U.S. copyright law that would cover them. So, back to my diagram: I think it is quite clear that it is a "reference guide" that would be very helpful to readers and students. I also think it takes an absolute minimum from the original, using only proper names and bare-bones descriptions of selected relationships (unlike the guides at issue in the Harry Potter Lexicon case or the children's adaptations case). In my original fair use justification attached to the image, I estimated that all of the information, if written out in narrative form, would consume perhaps 3 pages, and this is half a percent of the 600-page novel. I read on this page that fair use is not allowed on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use. But it also says "You may, however, submit such images to your local wiki, if it allows fair use." I don't know my way around the Wiki ecosystem well enough to know what that means. Is there a way I can re-upload the image for the U.S. Wikipedia only? (I will, by the way, reduce the size by about 55% this time.) Thanks!Drochtegang (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang: Commons is for free images. Here (en-wiki) is for free images that cannot be on commons (where US Law would allow such an image, but the country of origin does not - e.g. modern buildings where the country has no Freedom of Panorama) and Fair-use images. As we know fair use needs to be small. I see 3 possible things to do - as we are not 100% sure which way would work...

1. I'll pose a question at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright and see if there is any consensus to allow the image to exist on commons.
2. At the same time, I'll undelete the current image to allow for commons to view and discuss.
3. As an alternative, can you say how you created the picture? Would it be possible for you to create in in SVG format? We allow SVG images in fair-use (it has been discussed before whether we should...) - but SVG does not lose anything by being smaller - it's scaleble (e.g File:BurlingtonVT Logo.svg - it's small, but can be viewed bigger without loss) - your original image could be a default 316 x 316 SVG without loss of data - if you can't make an SVG - then I possibly can, depending on the original format.

NB: I'll have to do that at ~ 8pm UK when I'm home and on admin account  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if this diagram is considered a derivative work, any protected expression from the original novel, that the diagram contains, will be de minimis because the relations between the characters is a very small and, probably, insignificant part of the novel. It is not that "the fundamental essence or structure" of the novel was reproduced as in the cases that you cited. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I created this image in Google Drawings (part of the Google Docs suite). I checked just now and Drawings does appear to offer a download function in .svg format. Regarding the de minimis defense: I agree that should be considered as well. I had chosen fair use because of this hypothetical: a novelist copies all 45 or so names in the diagram (verbatim) from Doctor Zhivago, for characters in a new novel, and replicates the 75 or so relationships in the diagram as well. For example, a character named Yuri Andreevich Zhivago has a friend named Mikhail Grigorievich Gordon, and also has a half-brother whose name is Evgraf Andreevich Zhivago, who is the illegitimate son of someone named Princess Sotlbunova-Enrizzi, and so on. In that case, I think a copyright holder might be able to get past a de minimis defense, even if only the names and relationships were taken. A court might find a colorable case of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" even if the setting and plot of the second novel were significantly different from the first novel. The defendant would be in the position of arguing that "the relationships between all the major characters are insignificant to the structure of the book." But the more complete defenses, the better! So please advise -- should I try to create and upload a SVG version? Thanks.Drochtegang (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (Or I suppose it could be "fragmented literal similarity" instead. Either way, potentially more than de minimis when we are talking 45 characters, I would think.)Drochtegang (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang: It's at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_this_image_come_to_commons.3F If we get an answer that is good, then we should move it to commons - then all 300 Wikipedias can use it. If commons thinks no, then we can go with the fair-use svg option. It may take a day of so to get some answers. Since the data is text and shapes then svg is a better, leaner, format anyway, so I would suggest when you have a minute, have a go a creating an svg and see how the result looks - then whichever way we go, we can go with an svg file. I also checked when copyright expires - not an option - US 2052 and Rest World 2031 - bit of a wait. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This example with a hypothetical novel is misleading - the subject of the discussion is not a novel, it is just a diagram. In no way there have any "comprehensive non-literal similarity". Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a good plan. I tried SVG just now and it looks great.Drochtegang (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I've forgotten how I got here! My opinions: Whatever else, the image should not have been deleted. Unopposed nominations for deletion at FFD may result in deletion but this was not a nomination for deletion. No one suggested deletion. It's disappointing there has not (yet) been a response on Commons but to me this image is, in principle, no different from a section in an article listing the characters' names and stating their relationships. That would be entirely uncontroversial regarding copyright or plagiarism. In my view the image may be freely licensed with the uploader as sole creator. Clearly an acknowledgement to Pasternak would be a courtesy. I suggest (and I am happy to do this if you wish) the matter should be raised with

WP:DRV (where deletion will be overturned). If the image is uploaded to commons (as a free image) it will not be deleted. Thincat (talk

) 10:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Thincat. I agree that the diagram contains the same info that would be in a long list of names and relationships, and I also agree that it probably would have been uncontroversial if I had uploaded that list instead. Just for the record (and to further bolster the fair use case), the reason I chose to present the information in diagram form is that I believe it is much more useful for a reader than a two-page-long list: the information can be absorbed much more quickly. The diagram is also much more compact than a list would be: if a character is part of, say, five relationships, the character's name need not be repeated five times, as it would be in a narrative list. Finally, I think I would have gotten complaints for adding too long a list to the Doctor Zhivago page. My problem at this point is that I'm not comfortable declaring I am the sole author (and thus entitled to dedicate it to the PD or put a CC license on it).Drochtegang (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang: sad that commons has yet to reply - if they will... I cannot force you to apply a cc-by-sa template, so it cannot be moved to commons as it is. I suggest you upload the svg file here (has to be a new upload - can't overwrite a different file type) and copy the non-free rational/license data from the jpg image. If the svg standard size is too big - I can easily fix that, when the svg is up, we can delete the jpg. If later commons says OK, then it's not difficult to move it to commons once we have the license sorted out - there are bots to move images. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I uploaded the SVG version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_selected_relationships_in_Doctor_Zhivago_(novel).svg. I included the fair use rationale in the appropriate fields. I then added the diagram back into its original place on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zhivago_(novel). So I think we're back to where we started, but this time with a SVG file, which I hope is much lighter. Now just this morning, I got a message that a bot had marked the old version of the image for deletion because it was an orphan. I assume that bot will leave me alone now because you will delete the old version again, and the bot won't bother me about the new image because it is linked to the article. But there is still the issue of the bot that didn't like the non-free aspect of the image. Is there some way you can flag the image as OK now, so I don't have to go through this process again? Cheers,Drochtegang (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang: The jpg will be automatically deleted on Saturday, 7 October 2017 - I'll leave it aloone as commons might still look at it - if the commons request gets archived and no answer, I'll delete it as "author request". The svg is not too bad - it looks like an embedded image type, there are editors who can clean that up, you may be lucky and find one (if you zoom the image you can see the text gets a little fuzzy at very large zoom, true svgs are just a text file listing of lines, shapes and text and are scalable to any size with no pixelation. The default size is too big, no issue, I'll fix that for you, then it will all be OK. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Scrub that comment about fuzzy - I was zooming the wiki png interpretation - click image and zoom the true svg - sharp all the way Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks for fixing the default image size! And I'm glad to hear the resolution is working. At the bottom of the new image page, it says, "To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template." Are you able to do that for me (and will it protect against future bots)? Thanks!Drochtegang (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drochtegang:  Done. The (default) size now shows as 316x316, any advanced search on wiki to look for "oversized" images will not catch this file now as it's at the guideline size. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool--thanks. Hopefully no more problems.Drochtegang (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Nigger (dog).jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Per: your request I have altered the size of the vectored file in question to 288 × 551 pixels, with the reduced file size now at 5 KB. Please let me know if there are any other adjustments that need to be made to the file for it to become acceptable. Thank you for your help. —Spintendo^Talk 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: There's not a lot one can do with svg as they are (by default) scaleable. All one can do is crop (as you have done, and then change the page size so that the default view is in line with the non-free guideline of 100,000 pixels. So that will be 228x437. I have a method of changing page size (User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce), it works OK, there are certainly other ways. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I resized the image to 205 x 391, which should fall under the guideline of 100,000 pixels. Let me know if that works. —Spintendo^Talk 21:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Just fine, thanks Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thank you. Also, are you able to delete the older versions now, or do we just wait until the system deletes them? —Spintendo^Talk 21:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Since there is only you editing, we don't have to wait, I've done the revision deletes. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think these images should be un-resized. I would argue that due to the poor resizing (namely, lack of interpolation), the text is made utterly illegible (especially in the case of File:NortonCommanderWin.png). One would have to already be familiar with the program in order to recognize the image, which in my view defeats the purpose of having an image in the first place. Additionally, I would argue that the poor quality of the image (especially in the case of File:NortonCommanderWin.png) actively "tarnishes and misrepresents" the program, by portraying it as having poor quality text to the degree of being entirely unusable as a file explorer. If the images cannot be restored to their original resolution, I think they should be removed from the article and deleted, as in their present state, they actively detract from the quality of the article. ⁓ Hello71 02:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hello7: Yes, somewhat corrupted, sometimes you can't guess how the reduction will turn out. Restored for a manual reduce - it may be it won't reduce, and we'll have to tag it for no reduction. Needs to be seen. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This question is out of curiosity more than anything; I don't really care either way about the image these days (in fact, I'd forgotten it was on my watchlist!). I see it was tagged for reduction, so I'm wondering if its prior reduction (albeit 8 years ago so things have probably changed) just wasn't enough? - Purplewowies (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As usual things move on. There were old guidelines of (I think about) 350px and then was down to 300px (on one side), that did not work with some "letterbox" type images, so the current guideline at

WP:Image resolution, is by area, and has been settled on 100,000 pixels - for a square image that's 316 x 316, but it could be 500 x 200, etc. Probably a fairer solution, even if it takes a bit of calculation to work out the new size. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, can you please explain what exact NFCC size guideline this apparently violates and what exactly is the NFCC size guideline? This image is 500 × 359. What exact dimensions does NFCC require for this image to be NFCC? --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Image resolution. That was set around 2011, however until last November, it had not been possible to search for oversized images - resulting in some 300,000 images being uploaded larger than the guideline - with the improved Cirrus Search engine now in use, we have been able to slowly work through the backlog, but we still have 125,000 images to evaluate. The size is a guideline as it's not possible to reduce all images successfully - there are a few images that for some reason or other get corrupted on reduction (often screenshots of PC games/windows/cartoons/etc.). Images larger than the guideline will need a full reasoning in the FUR, and since the image is shown on the article page then for those cases it really needs to be of the same size on the article. Having a small article picture (where the images should be viewed as a proper fair-use usage), and a larger one on the image page does not make sense. It's known that photographs, which naturally have a much larger tonal scale than a PC game, don't experience much corruption. Currently finding that about 0.2% of the oversized images examined to date have reduction issues. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

20:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this good? Artix (Message wall) 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Appears to have been filled out OK. It's a little big - don't worry, an automated python script will reduce it in a day or so. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What size is deemed acceptable? By the way, is there a way to rename files? I want to change a few of them to align to the article names as well (I can't.) Artix (Message wall) 23:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You tagged this for reduction. Are you sure that it is unfree? It seems to have been created by British Rail, so maybe it counts as a government work? In that case, it's {{

@

Stefan2: I'm not convinced British Rail stuff has Crown Copyright - I can't find anything that says that. This is a list of Crown Bodies, they are not listed here. I seem to recall the classic London tube map is well copyrighted. You might need a FFD to decide. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

22:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm. That list doesn't mention

Stefan2 (talk

) 23:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: - I'll leave that with you. It does need some discussion, ideally at commons, as it could well end up there. I've looked at c:Category:British_Rail there is nothing like it there. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

See

Stefan2 (talk

) 23:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: Let's hope we get some answers, and not left in limbo! Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

00:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)