User talk:Ronhjones

Wednesday

4

September

09:00 UTC

Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Ronhjones' Navigation bar

Home

Talk (Archives)

Contributions

EditCount

Sandbox

Sandbox2

Awards

Userboxes

Gallery

CSDlog

Subpages

Adminship

Note for other Admins - If you want to change any action I have done, then you may do so without having to wait for a reply from me. Your judgement at the time should be sufficient.

If you came here because your article was deleted as an expired PROD - then check User:Ronhjones/DeletedPROD first

Note: To any interested parties. This is my main account, there are no edits under my old IP address 109.224.128.22 (terminated March 2014); a few minor edits under my even older static IP address 87.127.178.158, my work IP address (but that is shared, and not all the edits there are mine) 193.113.135.87 or 193.113.135.112 I also have User:Ronjones for logging in outside home. Current address is IPv6 - somewhere in the range of 2001:8b0:9f0::/48

All threads on this page will be archived after 14 days of non - activity.

{{Non-free reduce}}

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 (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@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)

• Done. It may take a while until MediaWiki updates the cache. --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 Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions? Files to be reduced are in different categories. Anyway, I suppose you could just work on the existing ones in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing and then run the bot on any new ones in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests. --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)
        • @Stefan2: No need to wait :-) Have processed all GIFs in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. Those the bot cannot do, it now changes the tag to {{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)

Mac OS X Messages screenshot.png

Hi.

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)

Removed Pictures from Wikipedia

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)

Thanks!

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

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

• News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

• In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

• Humour: Chickenz

• Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

• Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

• Gallery: Chicken mania

• Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

• Traffic report: Fights and frights

• Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-39

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

• Wikitext syntax highlighting is a beta feature on Wikimedia wikis with text written from left to right. This beta feature is based on CodeMirror. You can now search through the entire article with CTRL+F or cmd+F when you edit. Before it just searched through a part of the article. The developers are also fixing a couple of other bugs. [1][2]
• Administrators on wikis that use Structured Discussions as a beta feature or by default can now create and move Structured Discussions boards. Structured Discussions was previously called Flow. [3]

Changes later this week

• You now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device or IP address that have logged in to your account before you will be notified after five failed attempts. For security reasons you will soon get an email by default when someone tries to log in to your account and when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address. This can be turned off in your preferences. [4]
• Users with extremely old browsers (for example Netscape 2–4, released from 1995–1997) which do not support Unicode will no longer be able to edit. They should try to install a new browser. [5]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 September. It will be on all wikis from 28 September. (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 27 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation Readers department has proposed changing the mobile website. You can read more on mediawiki.org. This would be a big change.
• You can't use OCG to create PDFs after 1 October. This is because of technical problems. You can still create PDFs. Tech News 2017/37 said the function to create PDFs from books would still work. It is now clear it will not work for the next few months. The developers are working on fixing this. You can read more on mediawiki.org.

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

16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

deleted image

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 Fastily who I expect will agree with the undeletion and, if not, it should be raised at 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)

Image Patrol (large non-free files)

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 {{subst:orfurrev}}. That query finds files to be tagged with {{subst:orfud}} – that tagging task is handled by User:B-bot. That bot seems to be working: it tagged some orphaned files about five hours ago. --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)

@ShakespeareFan00, Fastily, and 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 Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests should be filled up with unnecessarily large amounts of files until the bot starts working again. People can get impatient if it takes a long time between tagging and reduction. --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)

File:PicassoGuernica.jpg

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)

@RP88: Not really. Whatever the policy was in 2010, it's very obvious that there has been consensus of a shift to a smaller size (WP:Image resolution). I seem to recall that there was a guideline of around 300px for one dimension, unfortunately that was not a very good idea, as there are many pictures (yours included) that are not a typical shape and thus the pixel count was rather large. For many years now it's been 100,000 pixels which is a much fairer policy to images of all width/height ratios. Feel free to start a new 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)