User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 42

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{
  RevDel
  checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled
  doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure
  and unique to Wikimedia.

There seems to be a clash between two bots. E.g. Words per minute has:

• (cur | prev) 14:30, 1 January 2019‎ ImageRemovalBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,110 bytes) -298‎ . . (Removing external link used as image) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 01:01, 1 January 2019‎ RonBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,408 bytes) +16‎ . . ((Task 12) Adding BrokenImage (disable)) (undo)

I have found a few like this or similar. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Twiceuponatime: It appears that the addition of [[File:..... which is not a working image will cause wiki to log that in the category for missing files, RonBot12 (on trial - now stopped as trial period ended) added BrokenImage to flag up the error (and hopefully get the last person to edit to fix it). Then along comes ImageRemovalBot who find an external linked image and removes it. The plan would be that RonBot12 would then remove the template as the problem is fixed - but it's stopped awaiting the BRFA review. I've removed the template manually. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you check/update the copyright stauts of my image? I edited the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minetest_Game_Screenshot_Late_2018_5.0.0-dev.png

@Cddepppp256: Fine, there's an extra field for permissions one can use in the {{information}} box, so I've moved it there. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If it is still not ok, teh delete it.

@Cddepppp256: It's Fine. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones, Greetings to you. I came across this articles when I was reviewing AfC and added 4 sources to the article. I found out that I cant accept the page due to the title is protected as the title has been repeatedly recreated without providing sources - [6] . Since I added some sources, would this title be lifted from protection and I would proceed to accept this page into mainspace? Also may I know which editors repeatedly resubmit the article so I may advise them what should be done so next time they would know what to do. Thank in advance and happy new year.

@

CASSIOPEIA: It was moved to draft 3 times, and each time the creator blanked the page and re-created in mainspace. He was told - User talk:A.lanzetta - you'll have to look in the history as he blanks the messages. So I salted the page on the 4th move to Draft to stop the endless move war. I'll take off the protection for you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

16:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ron. Would you change summary: 'Previous version(s) deleted per [[WP:F5|F5]])', to summary: 'Previous version(s) deleted per [[WP:F5|F5]]', in order to remove the unbalanced ) at the end? — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89:  Done Looks like I copied the bug from User:Legoktm/rescaled.js. My script just has a slightly different ReEgEx. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

To whom this may concern

I am a first Nation Mi'kmaq status native from New Brunswick please note that there is a distinction between lower case metis and upper case Metis. It should be noted that is is a fact that the noun metis was coined by people of European descent prior to any colonization in Canada. It was used first in Canada by Acadians in it's original sense. Lower case metis is translated directly to halfbreed because that is the meaning of the word. It is being challenged that metis and Metis are of the same. However someone who is metis may not have any aboriginal ancestry at all. Please see that any blocking of editing is not donE in order to further any historical revisionism due to a misuse of a term. Sylvia Moranda Benoit BFA lower case metis/ Acadian/ and Mi'kmaq Adanrom (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

All pages are constructed by a consensus of editors, no one

owns a page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ronhjones, a bot you operate, RonBot, has been recentlly adding Category:Association footballers not categorized by position where the category of the footballer's position is already present. See here, here and here. This has the potential to be disruptive, so I ask you to please fix the problem if it is present. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing here you may wish to take part in concerning the matter. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 14) has been approved. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gooday Ron - belated happy new year to you. Has anything changed? File:Lewis Hamilton signature svg.svg (Insufficient detail of source?) added to article 21 Dec. Thx, Steve.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Allowing RonBot to revert it's own errors on articles where there was already an association football position category in place. Iggy (Swan) 17:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Return of the Obra Dinn logo-title.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 18:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a PDF. Feel free to explain how somebody is going to reduce its resolution. Or fix your bot. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: It is indeed - the category page (Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing) shows the links to the instruction page - User:Ronhjones/PDFreduce. I usually do them when there is a few to do, they are not that difficult, I've done dozens of them. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mind you, text would be better done by putting on the article page. not sure if this an acceptable use of NFC. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

First, the document is text, not an image. It is ridiculous to convert a text pdf to an image, then shrink it and save the image as a pdf. That not only makes a huge file (unless you shrink it beyond what is readable) but it throws away all of the metadata in the pdf, much of which is valuable to show its provenance.

Secondly, The text is already on the article page, and it's precisely because it's challenged that the document is needed to

verify that text. The reference is now a dead link, and the 2011 document is unavailable from its original source, UK Sport

. Fortunately I have my downloaded copy of that document and I'm using our File: space to store that document under fair use. It performs a useful function and is not replaceable. It is not public domain, but it was available free of charge, as are all of UK Sport's online publications, so there is no commercial interest to violate. The principal reason for having low-resolution fair use images is to preserve commercial IP. That cannot apply to a pdf.

Thirdly, the other reason for having low-resolution fair use images is to reduce file size for readers with limited bandwidth. The pdf is 253K, and converting it into readable images would produce file sizes of megabytes in any lossless format. I assume you understand the issues of trying to render text as jpgs.

Finally, I have to ask, as you're an experienced Wikimedia, aren't you blindly following some arbitrary set of guidelines in the case of fair use pdfs? Surely you can see that all of the factors that come into play with images have virtually no sensible application with text-based documents? --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:NFC - At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution. Editors should ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail, with 5 pages you are at a total of 20 Megapixels - thus it needs a full review and consensus to stay, especially as the web archive link works just fine. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

*Sigh*, If the web archive link worked just fine, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes, you can see the snapshot of the download page (I know that because I was the one who added the archive url). But have you actually tried clicking on the link to see or downlaod the pdf? Thought not. You get

Hrm.

The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.

This page is not available on the web because page does not exist

Either that or you and I have very different definitions of "works just fine".

So you can't see or download the actual document in question. But you still can't see a reason why I want to make the source available.

You don't seem to understand how MediaWiki software deals with pdfs, which is rather worrying. The software renders a thumbnail image of the document, yes; it's a mere 12.7 KB in the article because it's important to minimise file size for many readers. Honestly, all web designers use small thumbs as a link to larger media which the reader can choose to visit or not. However, that thumbnail links to a file description page in File: space. On that page, you see a thumbnail image (which is 116KB for most folks). But there is a link to "Original file" that allows the reader to view or download the actual pdf, and that is still only 253 KB. It is simply a crazy suggestion to encourage changing the whole thing to an image which will be many times larger as a png, gif or tiff if you wish it to remain readable. Text is text, not an image, and you pay a large price in filesize by ignoring that.

See

WP:NFC - At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution. Editors should ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail. The key word here is IMAGES. Images are not text files and you are seriously mistaken in taking arbitrary guidance that is sensible when applied to raster images and trying to mangle it into use for text. It was never intended to apply to text files (or to svgs for that matter), and it makes no sense to slavishly adhere to a flawed interpretation that does not comport with the intention of the NFC guideline. --RexxS (talk

) 00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(

WP:RS, while an archived copy from a reliable web source does. Tarl N. (discuss

) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tarl N. and RexxS: Thanks Tarl N. - I agree 100% with you. I got the PDF with no problem (and I added the full url to the PDF on the discussion page). As for RS, I agree again, I can take any PDF and add of remove text as I want - I have the full Acrobat XI, it can change whatever you want in a PDF - and keep the metadata intact, and if there's a problem with the metadata you need to edit, you save in in Acrobat 5 format, and use a byte editor - tricky but very do-able.Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I owe you an apology, Ron. If you follow the archive link from the article reference (archive date: 13 July 2014), clicking on the download link gives the file not found message that I described. The archive link from the file page (archive date: 7 August 2013) allows you to download it. I've no idea why the two seemingly identical snapshots of the download page contain different links, but it means we can update the article reference and get rid of the copy I uploaded. It can be CSD F7 as the file is now replaceable.

@

WP:RS is based on casting doubt on my bona fides when I tell you that it is an unaltered file from 2012. Of course I could have edited it; I could also use a hex editor to modify metadata, and a utility to change the filesystem timestamp, and so on. But you have to ask why would an editor in good standing with a proven track record of supporting Wikimedia projects do something so deceitful, when it is quite possible that an unaltered copy still exists somewhere else that could unmask such a forgery? Think about it hard, before you call me a liar. --RexxS (talk

) 01:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:OR concerns; if there are, then you just remove the link and keep the original citation. Anyway, since Tarl N. found a workable archived version of the original source, things now appear to be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you recently tagged one of my uploads as F11. I have no issues on that if it violates the policy. Do I upload another file from another source and remove the tags or let this file be deleted and upload the "issue-less" file with another name instead. ‑‑V.S.(C)(T)

@Venomous Sniper: The source was "Screenshot of actress from youtube" - we need a url link to a specific compliant permission statement - most youtube videos are not allowed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a large number of pictures that I took myself to contribute to Wikipedia that got deleted due to copyright reasons, including some from my book, "Intelligent Image Processing", and some that I just took on my rooftop blue roof + green roof space. Can you help me understand why they were deleted?

@Glogger: Long time ago... Images were found on a remote web site with an earlier upload date - e.g. http://wearcam.org/urbeach/d571_windmill_shower_proc_q.jpg for File:Urbeach on etrc rooftop with windmill.jpg Date of remote 26 October 2004, date upload here 15:40, 5 July 2007. Always important to upload to Wikipedia/Wikimedia first. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There is proof on the site. https://www.flickr.com/photos/hamley1980/28027412029/in/photostream/ The permission is Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0), that permission isn't available as a tag on wikipedia so i tagged it with cc-by-sa-2.0 the Dune Rats pic is the same. Boofhead185 (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@

Cc-by-nc-nd}} - it becomes an automatic speedy delete. One would have to either contact the Flickr owner to change the license to CC-BY-SA - or get the copyright holder to go to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The first way is quicker, the outcome is exactly the same. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:, can't find a way to contact owner. Just delete the image then. Boofhead185 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Boofhead185: E-mail link on this page https://www.flickr.com/people/hamley1980/ Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:....no? Only thing thats listed is his blog (hasn't been active since 2016), and his accounts have no emails attached. Boofhead185 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Boofhead185: Maybe you need to be logged into Flickr to see it. Try sloggett.stephen AT gmail.com Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ron.

So I got your message, and I applied the resize to the music single cover you asked me to. I reduced the size from 820px to 400px. Does it sound right to you? 70Jack90 (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@70Jack90: As the banner said - the reduction is automatic within 24 hours. I see the reducing bot has completed it's job at 6am, going to the typical record cover of 316x316. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ronhjones. I was about to copy this file to Commons, but I had a couple of concerns: I don't suppose we have an OTRS ticket on the file? The reason I ask is that the reference to "my client" here suggests that the uploader is not the subject as claimed in the source field. Second, the EXIF lists the copyright holder as "Tara D. Sturm", not Jeff Allen anyway, and it's common practice for headshot photographers to retain copyright unless it's ceded to someone else (like the subject) in their contract. Entertainers often don't even know this and presume they are the copyright holders. I'd be interested in your thoughts on what to do. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Well spotted, I missed that line, doh! The image is not on the net, so not a copy. But it will need some permission verification. I'll add something Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rrburke: P.S. Don't know if you have seen this (popped up on the Commons-l mailing list today) - m:WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Move_files_to_Commons#Deployment_plan should start tomorrow - there will be a gadget to enable in your preferences.

Good to know. Thanks. I’ll keep an eye out for the gadget. Incidentally, I found the Jeff Allen headshot all over the net, together with a slightly different one from the same shoot: [18]. Of course, ours has been online for almost two years, so we could be the source. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Aha: here’s the source. The photographer appears to have changed her name. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Deleted it!. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Gadget will appear in the "Beta Features" tab like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just used it. Wow, smooth! -- Rrburke (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rrburke:Oh yeah! Updated Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons to reflect the new system. I was using FTCG, but this is way better. My only complaint is that it add another tab to the top of the page (I use monobook), thus 28 tabs now on an image... Might have to trim them down. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if it converted {{

@Rrburke: You could try this - Copy the content of User:Ronhjones/pdcV2.js into your vector.js or monobook.js (depends which skin you use) - gives 5 new macros to add templates...

1. nfr = "Non-free reduce"
2. nor = "Non-free no reduce"
3. ncs = "Now Commons"
4. mtc = "Copy to Wikimedia Commonss|human=" with your user name attached
5. dnm = "Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly"

Part of the reason for so many tabs on my system - these will only show on file pages. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ron,

An image your tagged for deletion is in question. FYI that is an original painting. I that is not a photograph within a painting. I took a photo myself of a flower and used it to work from to created a painted image. It does not use anyone elses work. I am the sole originator of the work, both the finished product as well as the photo I worked from. There is no one but ME. Thanks!

Biirdy (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Biirdy File:The Confidence of Fables, an oil painting by Lisa Adams 24 x 20 inche.jpg.

@Biirdy: Well you cannot have it both ways...

1. File:The Confidence of Fables, an oil painting by Lisa Adams 24 x 20 inche.jpg, says it was painted by Lisa Adams - then she needs to give permission, unless that is yourself. AND
2. File:Lisa Adams working in Studio.jpeg - If you are claiming to be Lisa Adams for (1), then who took the photo?

Somewhat a paradox. Remember good free images (which is what these are), will always get moved to commons, where this paradox will be an issue. Better to sort it out now. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ron, You wrote: :#File:The Confidence of Fables, an oil painting by Lisa Adams 24 x 20 inche.jpg, says it was painted by Lisa Adams - then she needs to give permission, unless that is yourself. YES that is me. I am Lisa Adams.

Biirdy (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Biirdy (aka Lisa Adams)

@Biirdy: Then who took File:Lisa Adams working in Studio.jpeg? The photographer gets the initial copyright, never the subject. Also permission for paintings always needs to be validated by the OTRS team - see COM:CONSENT Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ronhjones, I hate to tell you this but it appears Ronbot is still not working correctly, in two of its most recent edits 1 & 2 it has once again added Category:Association footballers not categorized by position to an article where the position category was already present. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Getting there, all edits lines now disabled, full test (no changes) underway. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro and S.A. Julio: Now getting sensible numbers. Last good run was 141124 players, bad run was 39435 players, dummy run is 142724 players. Something went strange with the Api continue (bots can only get 5000 page names per Api call, then feeds the continue parameter back for 2, 3... calls until the whole category has been retrieved). I've rewritten that bit of code. Hopefully the dummy run will propose removal of all the ones badly added. I will add some number checks for future runs to check the list size of this main list of players Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed the same problem today with some Scottish international players (Chris Maguire, Chris Iwelumo and Chris Martin). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Duplicates still exist - see eg this. It was already in a position category. Can you re-run to remove please? GiantSnowman 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And now it's removing valid entries, like this. GiantSnowman 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Stopped again. I was part way through a rewrite, I'll wait until I have the version 2 finished and sorted. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:It was right :-) - there is Category:English football forward, 1940s birth stubs in that article. This edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AEnglish_football_forward_stubs&type=revision&diff=878720630&oldid=417240246 (and others) added a whole lot of players into the "position known" list (where there were 22 categories and that became 271 categories) so the bot started removing the templates. After discussion with S.A. Julio, we are planning to fix the "position known" list to just the small number of categories (with no recursion) that have been used in the past and ignore these "stubs by position". At least it wasn't a code failure again - I'll have no hair left soon... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha - you're a better man than me for taking this task on! GiantSnowman 08:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Your "bot" flagged File:Skylark's Good Will Tour of Marion, Ohio.jpg because it feels that the image needs to be smaller. Here is the problem. It is a significantly reduced size scan of a full page image that was originally published at size 18"x28". (The original illustration was 24x36") Even in that larger format, it would take someone with very good eyesight to read the captions in the image. When I created the image for Wikipedia from the BMP scan of the original, it was done as jpg with greater than normal compression. Even with all of this, the text of the image is almost impossible to read. If the image is made smaller, it will make looking at the example next to impossible, thus losing its educational aspect. I understand that nature of copyright, and even as is, the image couldn't be downloaded for reproduction with any clarity because of the jpg compression. As such, as is, and given it's rareness, I believe that it qualifies for fair use, and I am hoping you will remove the bot. Sjkoblentz (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:NFC states At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution. Your current image is 2.1 MegaPixels. Just to put it in proportion, I note out of the 600,000 Non-free images, there is only one other file that is anything this big (ignoring half a dozen Microsoft screenshots, which are allowed by MS). I do wonder if the image if PD. With a 1930 publication date, copyright would have to be registered at creation (I see nothing on the image - just the artist's name at the bottom), and it has to be renewed 28 years later. If you cannot prove it's PD, then we can set up a "File for discussion" and see if the community will approve a gigantic non-free image. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

22:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This is more than reasonable, but Thta I no longer live in Ohio, finding the the PD status would be a pain. So go ahead and have it resized. I donated the original to local historical society, while I maintained legal ownership of the electronic image. Its more important to get it out there under Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for your time, Sjkoblentz (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have have second thoughts about using the image on Wikipedia. In fact an encounter with another twit on the site regarding an edit which needed to be made on another article has convinced me that my image collection and knowledge is better served others elsewhere. I am sorry if this caused you trouble. I will monitor the article to make sure the content is no readded. The picture should be removed as well. 02:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjkoblentz (talk • contribs)

20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As "Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old" has over 860 files, it appears RonBot task #1 isn't running. I'm wondering if you have any ETA on that task running again. -Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 00:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Turns out there was vandalism on the task's run page, stopping it from running. I undid the edit, I believe the task should run as normal now. -Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 00:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The "run pages" (i.e. User:RonBot/1/Run) aren't protected in any way, meaning vandals can stop your bot from running, as they just did. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to semi-protect the pages? What do you think? - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 01:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vanstrat: Thanks for finding that! Looks like RonBot did some serious catching up after your edit. It's not normal to protect them. However I do have a solution. They all run from my PC using Windows schedule to fire up a DOS batch file. If there is an run time error the DOS window does not close. I'll tweak the code to make sure it exits with the errorcode set when the BOT is stopped. Then when I come to the PC, I'll find the DOS window still open. I do note that the /64 block of that IP is all vandalism - Special:Contributions/2600:387:1:813::/64 - /64 is usually one modem - I just wonder if it's some school wifi? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution, especially since it's not happening that often from what I see. It appears that IP range is assigned to AT&T Mobility, and all the edits are done on mobile, so it's likely these are all mobile phone users, with geolocates putting them somewhere in the Dallas, TX area. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 20:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vanstrat: Applied new code and tested OK - leaving python with "sys.exit(1)" means there is an "ERRORLEVEL 1" to be trapped in the DOS window. Appling to all bot tasks. Not sure about the /64 - strange there are virtually no good edits... Still if (s)he/they continue, I'm sure it will get sorted out. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RonHJones this is (Number9ine (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) I will be glad to speak with you regarding any of the pages we are working on; for many artists that either did not keep good records of their work or the work is in danger of being lost -- particularly if they have made important contributions, quantity of work unimportant we are minimalists here. I look to Encyclopedia Britannica, Australian Library, Wiki and other archives to help with useful biographies of this work. Any suggestions appreciated.

Hi,

I've received a message on my talk page today re. the photo I downloaded for actor Robert Dorning (File:Actor Robert Dorning.jpg) - however, I realised my error and downloaded a further file (File:Robert Dorning (actor).jpg) correctly sized. Hope that is O.K. Beryl reid fan (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beryl reid fan: OK, I see File:Robert Dorning (actor).jpg, and I have deleted File:Actor Robert Dorning.jpg. You could have just left it, as the message says, it would have got automatically reduced (DatBot6 runs at midnight every night, reducing jpg and png files) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, Ronhjones  ^(Talk) yes sorry, I should have left it, I didn't read the message properly. Beryl reid fan (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Gooday Ron. I have just established a User:cat for a gent who recently changed a licence for me; previously I have uploaded others which were already at the correct licence c:Category:Images by Mark Walker. I hope this is in order (I copied another I knew of).

The images contained therein were from memory. I have another similar to establish. Is there any way to keyword-search, other than relying on my memory from a few years back? Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've thought of a way - by showing my uploads at max 500, then browser-search using Ctrl+F.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Try this - c:Special:Search and put insource: "Mark Walker" insource: "Flickr" in the search box = 37 hits. Note: insource: will NOT find the uploader from the "File History" section. Check mw:Help:CirrusSearch - there's a lot of parameters you can add into the search box. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Muchas - just got back to this on the first search suggested - useful for finding same Flickr photographer's works uploaded by other editors!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to run c:User:SVGWorkaroundBot/source on Commons like your Bots on en.wikipedia.

I created an accont for Toolforge, but I don't know how to copy the source-code to the server.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - contrib. 11:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: Sorry, neither do I! I have looked at that option, it looks like a steep learning curve. My bots all run from my PC, using Windows Schedule to start up a simple DOS batch file at the desired time. It's something I keep think about trying, and never get round to it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

So, the other IP-hopping vandal is back at #140.0.160.175 and is up to its same old tricks again, including using its talkpage as a sandbox.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: Sorted out, blocked again. Pages protected. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ron, Thanks for your message about the image file size. I am happy for the image size to be reduced to meet requirements. Thanks for your assistance. --PinkAechFas (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In re the edit summary for this edit. Kudos for including a link to disable the bot in the edit summary (other stuff I generally appreciate in the edit summary for bot edits: link to docs for bot tasks, link to its BRFA, direct link to bot talk page or feedback channel; just by the way), but it leads to User:RonBot/12/Run; a user subpage consisting of just the word "Run". Now while I may be able to guess that if I change that page to be anything other than "Run" the bot will stop editing, that's not at all discoverable to anyone that isn't more than averagely technically inclined. I'd suggest transcluding some instructions onto that page, or at the very least putting an edit notice on it. And apart from the technical "Here's how you do that" bit, it might also beneficially explain under what circumstances it would be appropriate to prevent the bot from editing (i.e. only for serious malfunctions etc.). In fact, now I think of it, there ought probably be standard verbiage for the latter for all bots in a template somewhere.

In any case, no biggie, and I mostly just took the opportunity to come say thanks for the useful edit (the broken image might have taken months to notice and fix otherwise). Cheers, --Xover (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: It's something that got copied borrowed from somewhere else. It's easier to use the bot's home page to disable any task. I'll think about fixing edit summaries. (and yes, anything but "run" kills it) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones. I've come here after seeing your bot pick up an error at the article I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, and was wondering if you could help: at Blue Jay Way#Cover versions and cultural references, as at Colin Newman, an image has somehow, and bizarrely, ended up rotated on the page. I appreciate this problem's a completely different one from those picked up by RonBot, but any ideas what the issue might be – or where I should investigate? Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@JG66: Image is on commons - c:File:Colin Newman b nov 2011.jpg. When the flickr review was done, the bot noted that a small version was uploaded, so it uploaded the largest one available. Now the wiki software (tries) works out which way up an image should be, but it sometimes fails. On the image page is a "request rotation" link, that calls another bot to rotate the image - I've done the request. It can take a few hours before it gets done. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that. I see the rotation issue has been sorted out ... but the image now appears strangely blurred! I don't want to put you to any more trouble – will read up about Commons and try to request assistance there. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@JG66: Image at c:File:Colin Newman b nov 2011.jpg looks OK(ish) to me (the depth of field is low, only the face is in good focus), wiki has to make a png for the page - 2592/200 = 12.96 times reduction (unlike some web sites, wiki does not send down the full image with a display size - that increases bandwidth too much). I've changed it to be 216 so that is 2592/216 = 12 - that stops any interpolation as a 12x12 pixel block of the image becomes just one whole pixel, that will help. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that looks great at Colin Newman. Thank you so much – you're a genius, sir! JG66 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

	管理员星章
	Sorry for distrubing. User:It's gonna be awesome is blocked on Chinese Wikipedia due to his personal attack toward others and gaming Wikipedia rules in a long time (3RR Noticeboard). If User:It's gonna be awesome continously does cross-wiki vandalism or disruptive edits, please report back to my talk page or zh:WP:VIP. Thanks. 云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 13:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ron, and trust all is well with you. Can I please draw to your attention the activities of the same person editing under the following IPs

Ron, Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ron, would you take a look at User:Cdo2017, they have continued to add unsourced content and creating poorly sourced articles that do not meet notability guidelines. All they do is increase the work for other users. It appears they have learned nothing from the last time you blocked them. I reckon a permanent block is in order.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2019 (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.

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)}

Responded to your reply RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Logo Socialist Alternative (Malaysia).jpg

Hi you deleted the above file on 3rd January 2015 after the article it was attached to was deleted. A new article that meets standards is now in place so I will add the logo Vahvistus (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vahvistus: I'll undelete it if you like... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No thanks, they have changed its appearance so I will use a new version Vahvistus (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A
  activity requirements
  for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A
  WP:PERM
  , where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-06

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• It was easy to untick a box by accident in Special:Preferences. This will now be fixed. [26]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 February. It will be on all wikis from 7 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Painting of Benjamin Cleveland.jpg

To Ron H. Jones: I received an email indicating that there were problems with a photo I uploaded to the Benjamin Cleveland Wikipedia page. The photo was of a painting of Benjamin Cleveland, painted by artist Don Troiani. It's not clear to me what the image source problem is, as I mentioned the artist in the caption. Can you clarify for me, and perhaps outline next steps? Thank you, Jr3arlington Jr3arlington (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jr3arlington: One cannot gain the copyright by taking a photo. The painting (unless documented somewhere) is automatically "All Rights Reserved" under the Berne Convention at the point of creation, and will last until 70 years after the painter's death. Thus you need Don Troiani's copyright release to show the painting. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

To Ron H. Jones: Thank you for that clarification; I will see such a copyright release from the artist. Jr3arlington (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Nevada Wolfpack football schedule

Can you fix the 2019 Nevada Wolfpack Football schedule please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@68.103.78.155: I don't fix them. My bot just flag the errors. Looks like someone cannot spell - Neavda has been used in the file name instead of Nevada. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Teaching grandmother to suck eggs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teaching grandmother to suck eggs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaching grandmother to suck eggs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AtlasDuane (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

FUR

Last June I was pressurised by an en wiki admin, relating to a FUR image of a (then) recently deceased TT rider, who invoked a bot by deleting the image from the article. An invitation to discuss at File:Talk was not undertaken, again deleting the file within two minutes, with the comment: consensus is that searching should take a few months not a quick Google search. As could have been seen at Talk, I did more than a quick Google.

Do you know of any general consensus discussion(s) relating to this ("few months" requirement) or is it on an ad hoc, individual basis? I chose the image specifically for the bio infobox and would like to re-instate. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: I know of no "fixed term" - why not put your piece from the image talk page onto the article's talk page and see if there is any reaction? (I've copied it to User:Ronhjones/Sandbox2 as it's deleted). Try https://search.creativecommons.org/ as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Still from US Army information film.png

Hi Ron - I appreciate your comment and help regarding the Atomic Cocktail draft article picture. I have attempted to address the issue as I understand it. However, even once I found what I believe is the best tag, I am not sure if I know how to use the tag / where to place it? I can't begin to tell you as a newby how hard and confusing using even the talk pages like this is. Image use in particular is especially frustrating and overly complicated; hopefully I placed the tag correctly, which I am including here: {{PD-USGov-Military}} Thank youNicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nicholas Nastrusnic: Images are never easy (unless it's a plain photo you took yourself). We need to be able to confirm that it's USGov-Military - so it needs a link to the film location to confirm, as there is nothing in the image to show that. Free images will always get tagged to be moved to commons, as they should not be here unless there is a reason - with no link to prove it PD, it would get deleted quickly there. If the film has author statement in it, then maybe the whole film should be uploaded - but that can be more tricky with file types and size... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Still from US Army information film.png

Hi Ron - Here is where I can find the video, if you watch the very beginning of it, it says it is from US Army, and the screen shot is from that opening scene where it is labeled US Army. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-eBpfAxbng If I understand you correctly and I need to find it on an offical US Army website, I am guessing that would be impossible. Thanks for your patience with a newby. I looked a good hour for an image I though would pass muster, and even though there are "a ton on the internet" that was the only thing I could find that said US govt.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nicholas Nastrusnic: That's OK - just what is needed - I've tidied up the image page for you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Still from US Army information film.png

Thank you Ron, MUCH appreciated.Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-07

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You can use the
  CSS class to show page issues to mobile readers. When you use ambox there are classes
  you can use.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 February. It will be on all wikis from 14 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

release of images

Hi, Ronhjones. I received a message from you that I need to confirm that I am the owner of these images: Theosophical Society Emblem.jpg , White Lotus Day – May 8, 1891.jpg , Theosophical Society in Adyar (Façade).jpg , Sociedade Teosófica no Brasil – 100 an0s.jpg , Selo comemorativo dos 100 anos da Sociedade Teosófica no Brasil.png I've put all the images that I uploaded in antecipation of future problems. I've sent e-mails to confirm that is my work. I do not know if you can see them. Sorry for my english. My name is Jairo Pereira Cavalcanti and user name: Jacantti

Jacantti (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Jacantti

@Jacantti: All the images now have OTRS received and processing Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)