User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 43

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.

I've added multiple sources to the crapwatch config page, but now we'll have various duplicates listed. So if the bot could merge duplicate entries, that would be great.

The logic would be when the FIRST parameter is a match, merge the entries together. That is

{{JCW-selected|FOOBAR1|FOOBAR2|FOOBAR3|source=BLPJ|note=Note 1}}
{{JCW-selected|FOOBAR1|FOOBAR2|FOOBAR4|source=DOAJ|note=Note 2}}

would become

{{JCW-selected|FOOBAR1|FOOBAR2|FOOBAR3|FOOBAR4|source=BLPJ, DOAJ|note=Note 1, Note 2}}

Is this doable?

@Headbomb: This is page User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg done by RonBot10. I'll have a think about it - not quite a simple as just a list sort. I take it you realise that the page does not fully display any more - I see the dreaded Post‐expand include size: 2097149/2097152 bytes in the html source. Too many templates :-) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Mostly because of these duplicates. I get that it's not super super straightfoward, but this logic would work relatively fine

1. Any 'match' to be merged will fully match to the second pipe ({{JCW-selected|FOOBAR1|.
2. Do 'stupid' merge ({{JCW-selected|FOOBAR1|FOOBAR2|FOOBAR3|FOOBAR1|FOOBAR2|FOOBAR4|source=BLPJ|source=DOAJ|note=Note 1|note=Note 2}})
3. Cleanup ({{JCW-selected|FOOBAR1|FOOBAR2|FOOBAR3|FOOBAR4|source=BLPJ, DOAJ|note=Note 1, Note 2}}).

This might not be the smartest way to do it, but it might be a 'simple' to code it.

I did do a bunch of cleanup with regexes. It's not perfect, and would be better implemented at the bot-level, but it does make the task not time critical.

b

} 20:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:I've copied the 4th Feb version to my userspace to run trials - only to local PC file for now. I see issues...

{{JCW-selected|Academic Journals and Research ACJAR|source=BLP}}
{{JCW-selected|Academic Journals and Research|ACJAR|source=SPJP}}

{{JCW-selected|Academic Knowledge and Research Publishing|Category:Academic Knowledge and Research Publishing academic journals|source=BLP}}
{{JCW-selected|Academic Knowledge and Research Publishing|source=SPJP}}

{{JCW-selected|Academic Web Publishers|AWP|source=SPJP}}
{{JCW-selected|Academic Web Publishers|source=BLP}}

• Set 1 - no "|" between name and code. Obvious error, should I assume that an ALL CAPS ending to the second field should be split out?
• Set 2 - 1st plan (now looking not so good) was to split on "source" and sort on the first chunk. Looks like I need to split on "|" and sort on second field only?
• Set 3 - assume they are the same?
• I also see that on your merged version some "notes" have now come before the source. Maybe try and reformat each row in turn to a standard and at the same time fix "Set 1" type errors? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Obvious error yes... in most cases. But this is best handled manually because you'll have things like Foobar and Foobar LLC which may be completely different entities. AFIAC, this isn't a match.
2. This is a match. Merged entry should be {{JCW-selected|Academic Knowledge and Research Publishing|Category:Academic Knowledge and Research Publishing academic journals|source=BLP, SPJP}}
3. This is a match. Merged entry should be {{JCW-selected|Academic Web Publishers|AWP|source=SPJP, BLP}}
4. Notes/Sources order doesn't really matter although they must be the last things in the templates. If you want to standardize so that notes are last, I'm all for it.

Inline sorting

A simpler sorting tweak in the meantime would be

• {{JCW-selected|MAIN|Alpha|Charlie|Bravo|Category:Bravo|Category:Alpha|Category:Charlie|source=BLP|note=Whatever}}

and sort

• {{JCW-selected|MAIN|Category:Alpha|Category:Bravo|Category:Charlie|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|source=BLP|note=Whatever}}
  • OK will keep that in mind Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Based on that idea - How does this look (before and after)

{{JCW-selected|MDPI|List of MDPI academic journals|Category:MDPI academic journals|Hydrology (journal)|Social Sciences (journal)|Soc. Sci.|Soc Sci|source=BLPU|note=MDPI is very much hit-and-miss. MDPI was also on Beall's original list for a while, but was removed}}
{{JCW-selected|MDPI|Category:MDPI academic journals|Hydrology (journal)|List of MDPI academic journals|Soc Sci|Soc. Sci.|Social Sciences (journal)|source=BLPU|note=MDPI is very much hit-and-miss. MDPI was also on Beall's original list for a while, but was removed}}

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I forgot about lists... but that's OK, since they're in the category, and I can just remove those. Looks good to me, sort away!

b

} 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:Have a look at Special:Diff/883037436 - this is based on the "old" version before you hacked at it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, an obvious issue is the removal of the }} ending in the first section. Also there should be a space after the commas in |source=. Otherwise looks good AFAICT.

b

} 01:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:I had already noticed the double braces lost - I remove them when I format the line, forgot to re-add them on lines that don't need formatting! Added the space after comma. So Special:Diff/883168392 is the real deal from the old version. Then put current page in that page and ran bot again - Special:Diff/883176474 is the result, and seems to have worked really well. Have a look. No idea yet how this code will work on the other page (User:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg) yet! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Let's do it live (warning, some profanity).

b

} 19:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:Ha - It screwed the other page Special:Diff/883179410 - too specific for that page format now. Will keep them as effectively RonBot10a and RonBot10b - and will run the two codes sequentially. No point trying to make the new version work with User:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg, we have a working code, and if it ain't broke... So V1 set to process User:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg and V2 will process User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg. Batch file set for double run. Windows schedule will fire it up as usual. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. It might be time to update the exclusion lists syntax too. It's getting pretty unwieldy at times. I'll let you know if that happens.

@Headbomb: Agreed, and by keeping the codes separate, we can make a specific one for that page if required. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed an issue. Lines like {{JCW-selected|The Veliger|Veliger (journal)|Veliger|source=SPJH}} gets changed to {{JCW-selected|The Veliger|Veliger (journal)|source=SPJH}}. Likewise for {{JCW-selected|LAR Center Press|LAR Center|Library of Academic Resources|source=BLP}} to {{JCW-selected|LAR Center Press|LAR Center|Library of Academic Resources, BLP}} or {{JCW-selected|International Society of Universal Research in Sciences|EyeSource|source=BLP, SPJP}} to {{JCW-selected|International Society of Universal Research in Sciences|EyeSource, BLP, SPJP}}. I've reverted the edit, since I don't really want to inspect everything that got lost, but feel free to re-edit once that's solved.

b

} 03:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: All the best made plans. Fixed version 1 to do both pages again until sorted. I thought I'd fixed the first problem (it happened a lot at the start), will re-look. The second is due to "if 'source' in 'Library of Academic Resources'" - yes it is, but it's not what I wanted. Need to fix to if "|source=" in.... We are close, no cigar yet. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

@Headbomb:Fine now - see User:RonBot/Questionable.cfg. Fixed your two issues, rewrote the source (and note) finding parts to be much more tighter and not find any partial match. Found one other minor error (two identical notes were kept - {{JCW-selected|International Journal of Review in Life Sciences|IJRLS|source=BLJ, SPJJ|note=hijacked, hijacked}}. Have set up ready for next run. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Great, looking forward to it.

b

} 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The RonBot recently placed a "((Task 12) Adding

This article appears to contain a broken image link. Please help fix this error if you can.

" on the Automobile License Plate Collectors Association article. The first was on 10 Feb 19 and the second was on 16 Feb 19. When comparing selected revisions for those dates, the RonBot left a date of May 2013 in both cases. Why is this date being shown? Shouldn't the date shown be the date the change was made? What does May 2013 have to do with these broken images? Also, wouldn't the bot be more effective if it identified the line or the section of the article where there is a BrokenImage? Since the RonBot message is now permanently embedded into the history of the article, it seems like the correct date and image location would be important in tracing what is (was) broken, and where it is (was) located. Please ping me in your reply. Thanks! Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@

CAT:MISSFILE, in the hope that the last editors might have the page in their watch list, and might come along and fix the problem. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:. Cheers. It seems to have slipped in from another task. Down to cutting and pasting useful bits. I fixed that one... Now I'll fix this one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Check other task too, like (Task 12 above :p.

b

} 04:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Just spotted them. Some tidying up tomorrow I think. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 05:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, RonBot also adds {{BrokenImage}} to vandalized image links. This prevents rollback and adds additional effort to reverting such vandalism, which has happened twice to me now (diff 1, diff 2). If the previous user's revision has a working image link in the position of the current dead link, I think that it would be beneficial to ignore the change, or to inform the user directly instead. It may alternatively be worth waiting a few hours before checking if the same problem still persists, then tagging the problem. Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@

CAT:MISSFILE, in the hope that the last editors might have the page in their watch list, and might come along and fix the problem. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you for the explanation. Well, normally, vandalism gets reverted before RonBot adds the tag, so I think it's not a large problem. It just became noticeable when nobody watched the recent changes log for multiple minutes. I didn't notice it until today, and I have misread the bot approval date. I thought it was 20 February and I'd be writing about a newly approved task. Thanks for creating the bot task! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ron. Thanks for your message. Before you brought this up Hammersoft did not have a problem with the plaque. And UGA university seems not to have a problem with the university seal used in the UGA university article. The “seal” (really a plaque) you referenced was attached to a building. There is already a picture taken in 2010 of the law library entrance in the same UGA Law article with the same seal/plaque above the door. I understand the plaque is not an official seal, but a decoration (the real seal has the word “Justitia” that is the school’s motto). I doubt anyone knows the author of the plaque as it was constructed with the building years ago. I note that, for instance, the stainless steel artwork on top of the Chrysler Building in New York has multiple pictures taken of it without a copyright problem. Questions: (1) does the plaque violate copyright as attached to a building for all to see, (2) as part of a building that is the subject of the article make it violative and, if so, (3) does the picture of the library entrance with the plaque above the doors violate copyright and has to be deleted also? Thank you in advance for all your help and education. I would appreciate your responding to my talk page. Best regards, Quaerens-veritatem 01:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (talk)

@Quaerens-veritatem: The US only has Freedom of Panorama for buildings - c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama, not for any 2D or 3D artwork put on the building. Therefore one needs to know when the plaque was fitted, was a copyright registered, was the copyright renewed, etc. - check File:PD-US table.svg for applicable dates. The US is so awkward with outdoor artwork. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:Thanks Ron. Think the building where the plaque is was built in the 60’s and doubt, but don’t know, if any copyright protection was attempted. It’s pretty pedestrian as a work goes in any event, a bit ugly, and not worth further debate if you feel it doesn’t fall outside copyright. If I can get out that way someday maybe I’ll see if a picture of the whole west entrance is worthwhile. Of course I would appreciate your expertise and time if you think it can be saved. Best, Quaerens-veritatem|Talk Quaerens-veritatem 03:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: For that date, my best guess is {{PD-US-no notice}} - I can't see them bothering too much with copyright - if they were that fussed, there would be some small detail, say on the rim. Let's go with that. I'll fix the page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:Thanks so much, again, Ron. You make Wikipedia a truly informative product of your intelligence, experience, and expertise. Best regards & wishes. (Quaerens-veritatem|Talk) Quaerens-veritatem 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The photo that was speedily deleted was one I took. I wouldn't have added a picture like that if it were one I'd swiped from another website. The only reason it already appears online elsewhere is because I took the picture to illustrate where the Cathedral of Hope's Columbarium is in regard to the front entrance and building at Find A Grave. But yes, I did take that picture. I looked at the Wikipedia page about Donating Copyrighted Materials, but I've never had to look there or go through that process before. So, can I try again, or will I just get the delete treatment again? Shaggylawn65 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:CONSENT, and you somehow need to show how it's your image and not Find a grave (who's terms are not compatible - https://www.findagrave.com/terms). If it's a digital camera, and you have the original camera image with it's full EXIF data, then that can be used to show ownership - if the OTRS team are satisfied, they will undelete. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I very likely don't have the camera that I took the picture with, and the picture may not be one I still have the original of. I looked at that Donating section, but I don't know which one of the attributes I could use. I'm by that church pretty regularly to take part in their breakfasts each weekend, and also to check if their columbarium has any new burials niched, so I guess I'll just take another one up there. I need to take one each of their new monument entrance sign, and of their Interfaith Peace Chapel as well, while I'm there. That way, I'll be certain to have a copy of the pics. Sorry Ron, if I was upset at all. I've never had a pic I took and posted on Wikipedia ever get deleted/reverted before, and it was a surprise. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot.... Please don't take this as "canvassing" but do you have a recommendation as to what I should post any future self-taken pictures as, as far as an attribute that's applicable, and, should I post those through Commons or what I've been doing, locally only to Wikipedia? I'd like to avoid future surprises. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shaggylawn65: Free images should go to commons - if uploaded here, they will get moved, and make it harder for you to track. Use the c:Special:UploadWizard, until you know exactly what to do - then you can use c:Special:Upload for speed - but I think the Wizard might do multiple files.. (I never use it!). Choice of license is up to you - personally I only use cc-by-sa-4.0 - I see you set that file for dual license - in my view no one in their right mind would ever use GDFL on an image any more - and you have to use a CC license on commons, so I just use one - I've programmed that into the camera - so it shows automatically (e.g. see the metadata at the bottom of the page c:File:Strathaven Balloon Festival 2018 6.JPG - "Copyright holder RON JONES CC BY-SA-4.0"). I'm also an admin over there, so do ask for help if needed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to my question about how to submit a draft for review/approval. I hope everything works out. Thank you again. Take care Crywryterpr (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reducing the image (I intended to reduce it but forgot it somehow). I am not sure if it was a good idea to reinsert the reduced version in the article [3]. JimRenge (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@JimRenge: The file needed a proper Fair Use rationale template - I've added one - there must be a FUR for each article the image is used in, and the FUR must specify the article name.

The whole NF reducing is (almost) automatic. RonBot Task 3 runs at 6pm finds anything bigger than 105000 pixels and adds the tag. Then DatBot Task 6 will reduce jpg and pngs at midnight. gifs are done by RonBot Task 2 at 7pm. svgs are a special case (one can only reduce the nominal size, as svg are scaleable), RonBot 4 does these at 2am. That leaves tif, pdf and movies to be manually done (along with the odd gif that the Python Imaging Library can't do), and animated gifs. I try not to let the manual section get too big - tif like this one are easy, just a quick reduce in PhotoShop - the others are a big more fiddly. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi ,

You tagged my inages for resizing. I have checked all the toll tools that you described for this purpose but i couldn't use them.

Can you help me to reduce the size? Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Olaniyan Olushola: As the banner says - it's automatic. You don't have to do anything. The note is only really there in case the image has lots of "dead space", and you would like to crop it first. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're done with this, could you

@Headbomb:  Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Evad37 There'sNoTime Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ritchie333

CheckUser changes There'sNoTime Keegan • Ks0stm Oversight changes There'sNoTime Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced
  WP:SPI
  ).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive
    paid editing
    .
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

Hi,

You've mentioned that "File:Glenn Dynner author of Yankle's Tavern.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203891036089015&set=pb.1014566931.-2207520000.1551393241.&type=3&theater. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license." I've sent the appropriate copyright document to [email protected] as you mentioned. My ticket number is 2019030410008739. I ask please that you do not delete the image as I have permission from the subject pictured to use that particular image. I'm not sure if I signed my message correctly, but I'll try to be on so I don't miss your response. TowTru (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)TowTru (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@

subst:OP}} to the image page, as OTRS can well take longer than 7 days. I see the ticket is there, so I've added the OTRS received banner for you. Now it's down to OTRS. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

02:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thank you! So just to make sure, I don't have to do anything on my part? Did you see the attachment with the email when you looked at the ticket? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@TowTru: Nothing more to do, just wait for an agent to reply. There is an attachment. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You blocked Cdo2017 on 1st Feb 2019 for one month. Another account, Cdo2019 was created immediately after that. I am of the opinion that it was the same person as there is a large overlap in the area of editing of both accounts. However, the newer account was not used to make any edits during the block period of the older account. Does that qualify as sock puppetry? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 05:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: Agreed - they have to be the same person. Probably created it in anger, then changed their mind. The first account seems dormant (looks like one small edit to see if it was unblocked), so long as it stays that way - if they start using both accounts at once then that is more an issue. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

In

@Headbomb: Simple for you, not sure I have a good grasp of it yet...

• Taking JCW-exclude|Acta Chemica Scandinavica|Acta medica Scandinavica as example (let's miss out the curlies!)
• Foobar is Acta medica Scandinavica
• So where is the creation date?
• And {{JCW-date}} seems to be fixed at 2020-02-20, so nothing will be after it, as it has not yet occurred.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The creation date for

b

} 04:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Village pump says [11] is the way to go. Credit goes to

b

} 05:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that makes sense. I'll start looking at a suitable API calls. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: "info" in the api set of calls (m:API:Info) does not give the creation date! (sigh). However, asking for the timestamp of just one revision in reverse order (i.e. the first revision) does work and is nicely quick (60-70ms), e.g....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=query&format=json&prop=revisions&list=&titles=Journal%20of%20Internal%20Medicine&rvprop=timestamp&rvlimit=1&rvdir=newer

I can now start looking at some coding. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of parsing [12] directly, but timestamp of the first revision works too. Not really picky on the exact mechanics.

b

} 18:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Have a look at User:RonBot/Citations.cfg and its talk page - I fixed 2 of the entries to be

ABA Journal ≠ Nellie V. Mark
ABA Journal ≠ Journal of Internal Medicine

So one has a link to a NEW page (created 23:53, 6 March 2019‎), and the other has a link to an OLD page (created 20:38, 17 November 2010‎). So only the first one is post {{JCW-date}}, and that's what appears on the talk page. Does that do what you want?

Was it run on just a subset of the pages? Because there are a few more that should have been reported. E.g.

• CAGENA ≠ The Camera
• Trends (journals) ≠ Trends (journal)

To name a few.

b

} 17:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What should be reported is the OLD pages, not the new ones. If the page existed before the compilation, the exclusion is likely no longer needed.

b

} 17:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Look above you said and was created after the date found in {{JCW-date}}... - I thought that was odd at the time. No problem, I can switch the compare and run again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What a brainfart that was! Updated. Indeed that made no sense!

b

} 21:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Have another look. It look OK now. We have the fake one at the top of the list and several others. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, looks good. I'll have a small refinement to allow for bypassing entries. There are a few corner cases where we want to exclude when the article exists.

Ignore things that are in that 'Ignore' comment. The next day's report would look like [13].

b

} 22:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I think we are there. Check out latest run, it's exactly the same page as you put up, just a change in signature times. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Last thing that should be implemented is a check to see if a run is the same as what's already on the page. If it's identical (save for the timestamp), don't bother saving/updating.

b

} 05:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@

null edit). Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that works. Timestamp is not really critical.

b

} 20:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: OK, I'll fix the page names to work with the right pages and off we go... (I'll delete the test page as well) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved the "ignore" data to

User talk:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

21:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

b

} 21:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Software always throws a curved ball when you don't expect it. I'll fix that. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"No possible exclusions found" is ... a weird message since every entry on the page in an exclusion. :No unnecessary exclusions found. would make a lot more sense.

b

} 04:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Fixed for tomorrow. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I submit an article to you for review/editing that I was paid to prepare? All the facts are accurate about the businessperson that the bio article discusses, but according to Wikipedia's rules that you directed me to, I cannot be the person with responsibility for the final edit of the piece. Please advise, thanks, John Companiotte Companiotte1 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:AfC - the reviewers there know what is required to make a stable page, and will not pass it until it is up to standard. You will never be the final editor, pages change by the day - be warned, this is where the "skeletons in the closet" do come out, once you unleash the monster, there's no knowing where it would end - I've more than enough requests for page deletion (by the subject) at OTRS, as the page has spiralled out of their control. Only write a biography if the subject is squeaky clean. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

21:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a one-off edit but for some reason, it made an edit to this article relating to task 3 which seems like the wrong place to do that. I've seen the image which has not been used in the article, instead that is used in someone's sandbox. The question - has RonBot done something wrong with this? Iggy (Swan) 21:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Check out User talk:Mjdiamzon Api calls by default, follow redirects. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:William Moore aka Willie Haggart sharing a moment with his Wife Angela Moore aka Likkle Miss.png

I do not understand this copyright thing ...I uploaded a photo from an album and I made note that someone else uploaded the same photo to a photoslide in a video on Youtube ..now I'm flagged ..what should I do ? I think Wikipedia should review and simplify its policy re this ..1st time or non regular users can't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by AROO8 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@AROO8: Only the copyright holder can donate the copyright. That person will normally be the photographer. Owning a photo (just like owning a painting), does not give one any copyright - that stays with the original creator (unless that person transfers the copyright in writing). It's complicated because the Law is complicated. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ronhjones Hope you are doing fine, its user Ab07 short for Abdul Sir im new to the Wikipedia community joined a couple days back im working on to create a page (Article) of a Company called Menlopark Technologies Looking for any sort of help in understanding how do about it as wikipedia seems quiet difficult for me also there are tough guidelines i heard from my friends

Looking forward towards connecting with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab07ar (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:AfC and the links on the page Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

13:48, 16 March 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.Joseph Ozojie (talk

) 15:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This file was created by the brand's Graphic designer, it is used on the brand's website {https://kingsprimetv.com/}
{{attribution|User:Joseph Ozojie}} Previously published: This image was previously uploaded on two Wikipedia accounts that were block when i was learning how to edit--Joseph Ozojie (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:CONSENT - which must be done by the copyright holder and no forwarded e-mails allowed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RonBot has been tagging a lot of pages with {{BrokenImage}} recently, with seemingly no broken images. I think this is due to the Commons file c:File:Blank.png being inadvertently deleted and promptly returned. It looks like it is used in a lot of infoboxes and the like. It looks like the bot is still tagging; I don't know why. Just a heads up in case you were wondering what's going on with the bot and maybe someone needs to rollback that tagging. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've posted about it at ANI just in case the bot needs to be temporarily shut down. Here is the notice:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, just as a precaution and pending an investigation - I've shut down RonBot. Feel free to unblock the bot at your discretion and without my prior approval; just let me know that you've done so and what you found that went wrong (if applicable). Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please follow up at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#User:RonBot_trouble_possibly_in_need_of_intervention with updates on this matter. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, your bot sent a message about the image will be reduced in size automatically. I have uploaded a cropped version that is now 256 x333 to go under the 100000 px limit. BUT I had another message before yours about the copyright status - after querying it with the editor it seems the image has a CC SA 4 ? license so it is OK, the editor added the CC SA note BUT replaced the image with a MUCH bigger one from the same source, and the cropped one that I uploaded afterwards is not showing. What do I do? I would like the one I cropped below the 100K limit to show and not be reduced further. The image is on the Sarah T. Stewart-Mukhopadhyay page. Ray3055 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ray3055: The file is fine, I have moved it to Commons. Thank you for your contribution. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ray3055: File is now at c:File:Sarah T Stewart planetary scientist McArthur Fellow Sept 2018.jpg and I have approved the license there, and deleted the en-wiki version. You don't need a non-free version. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I received a message regarding the copyright status of a derivative work from you. The image has a CC SA 4 license and the creator of the original image and the creator of the derivative work is one and the same, I have rewritten the description to clarify this. If there is anything else needed please let me know. The image is on the Amrapali page.

Chihenc ^(Talk) 05:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones, do you have the power to 'index' my article so it shows up in google or other search engines ? Be patient with me..I'm new to this thing Here is my article that I'd like to be 'indexed' -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Haggart — Preceding unsigned comment added by AROO8 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@AROO8:, once your article has been created, it should start showing up in google and other search engines automatically. Or eventually.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Fink: I created it between 3/2 weeks ago and it is not showing up in Google or any other ..I read somewhere that takes between 1 and 90 days. But an admin can fix it immediately

@AROO8: Google will index it once a New Page Patroller has approved it. If they don't approve it, then it will takes 3 months. I don't do article reviews, too busy in other areas. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you made this edit [24] Regards --Woogie 10w (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: Articles listed in Category:Articles with missing files have {{BrokenImage}} added by my bot, when the page is removed from the category the bot will remove it (runs twice a day). Category:Articles with missing files is populated automatically by the wiki software seeing a bad image link. I see a red link half way down the page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some support