:{{ping|Sjkoblentz}} Compression is irrelevant as we allow many images formats, some are lossy (like jpg) and some are not (like png). We are only concerned with the image displayed, not how sharp the image is. The main criteria is displayed pixels. Wiki classes "resolution" as the sqrt(pixel count), so we can ask for "Low resolution" and mean a small pixel count. The standard guideline (and is is only a guideline) is 100,000 pixels, and 99.8% of non-free images are happily below that figure. [[WP:NFC]] states '''{{purple|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. [[User:Ronhjones|<b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron<span style="color:red">h</span>jones </b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones| (Talk)]]</sup> 22:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sjkoblentz}} Compression is irrelevant as we allow many images formats, some are lossy (like jpg) and some are not (like png). We are only concerned with the image displayed, not how sharp the image is. The main criteria is displayed pixels. Wiki classes "resolution" as the sqrt(pixel count), so we can ask for "Low resolution" and mean a small pixel count. The standard guideline (and is is only a guideline) is 100,000 pixels, and 99.8% of non-free images are happily below that figure. [[WP:NFC]] states '''{{purple|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. [[User:Ronhjones|<b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron<span style="color:red">h</span>jones </b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones| (Talk)]]</sup> 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, [[User:Sjkoblentz|Sjkoblentz]] ([[User talk:Sjkoblentz|talk]]) 18:34, 20 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, [[User:Sjkoblentz|Sjkoblentz]] ([[User talk: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)
== Searching Commons ==
== Searching Commons ==
Revision as of 02:56, 21 January 2019
Sunday
23
June
01:47 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.
If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Ronhjones}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
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
This is Ronhjones's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
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.
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)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: Getting there, all edits lines now disabled, full test (no changes) underway. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And now it's removing valid entries, like this. GiantSnowman 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Haha - you're a better man than me for taking this task on! GiantSnowman 08:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
original art, painting not derivative
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@RexxS:It may be a text document, but wiki renders it as png images. The low res NF guideline is nothing to do with limited bandwidth, most images are large anyway - there are 51 million images available for articles, and only 600,000 NF images. It's to comply with the Fair Use - 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, 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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
(talk page stalker). I went to the archive link and was able to retrieve the PDF just fine. It took me three clicks (for the record, follow the url documented in the image page, click on the 506k pdf pointer, see "http 302", which after 5 seconds re-directs to download a Jan 13 2014 copy). I'll also note that a personally-stashed text or PDF file does not qualify as a WP:RS, while an archived copy from a reliable web source does. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
@Tarl N.: The assumption that a copy I downloaded does not qualify as a 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)[reply]
@RexxS: The file was deleted and the FFD discussion closed before I could respond to your last post; so, I hope you and the others don't mind me doing so here. My point was that you didn't really need to "show" the source in order to cite it; simply citing the original source would have most likely been acceptable per WP:SAYWHERE as long as the original source met WP:RS; so, there would've been no justification for the non-free use of the file (even as a true citation) per WP:FREER. I mentioned using a convenience link only as a possibility; you'd still be citing the original published source, but the link to the image would just be added for further clarification and aid in verification. For example, you might want to cite an old newspaper clipping that can only be found on a website like Newspapers.com. The source you cite is the old newspaper, not Newspapers.com. You then might want to add a link to Newspapers.com as a convenience to aid the reader in verifying the source. Now, whether a convenience link to a personal website would be acceptable to others is unclear, but it might be considered OK as long there's no WP:COPYVIO or 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)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Ecca Vandal performing 2017.jpg
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)[reply]
@Boofhead185: You cannot change someone else's license. It's CC-BY-NC-ND and is not allowed here - you can add {{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)[reply]
@Ronhjones:, can't find a way to contact owner. Just delete the image then. Boofhead185 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
CSD F11 of an image
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)[reply]
Speedy deletion for copyright reasons of pictures that I took myself
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?
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
You can now add captions to files on Commons. Captions are short descriptions of the file. They can be translated to all languages we use. They can't use wikitext markup.
Earlier a quoted HTML attribute had to be followed by a space. Now it doesn't. This means that some pages could look different when you save them even if you didn't edit that part of the text. [3][4]
Templates with <templatestyles> could not show the difference between the live template and the sandbox version when they were tested. This has now been fixed. <templatestyles> has a new wrapper parameter now. You can use it for selectors like .mw-parser-output <wrapper parameter value> <selector from CSS page>. [5]
Problems
When you see an edit in the recent changes feed or in the history of a page some of them have tags. Some tags are added automatically. You can also add tags manually. Tags for edits that have been added manually can be edited. This didn't work for a little while. This has now been fixed. [6]
Users who could cause more damage to the wikis if someone took over their account have to have more secure passwords. This includes administrators and other user groups. They can't use passwords that are in a list of common passwords. Accounts with common passwords are easy to take over. The list of common passwords was made longer a few weeks ago and has a different error message. Some user groups have been added to those who can't use common passwords. This is to protect all accounts with user rights that could cause damage. [7]
The AbuseFilter variable minor_edit has been removed. It was deprecated in 2016. Now you can't use it. You can fix the filters using it. You can find them if you use the search bar on Special:AbuseFilter.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 15 17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Zero single cover
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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: [8]. Of course, ours has been online for almost two years, so we could be the source. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha: here’s the source. The photographer appears to have changed her name. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just used it. Wow, smooth! -- Rrburke (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
It would be nice if it converted {{Move to Commons}} to {{NowCommons}} so you don't have to go back and do it manually, but apparently that's not in the offing, according to mw:Help talk:Extension:FileImporter (the section "Hinweistext anpasssen, dass Vorlage "Now Commons" einzufügen ist"). -- Rrburke (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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...
nfr = "Non-free reduce"
nor = "Non-free no reduce"
ncs = "Now Commons"
mtc = "Copy to Wikimedia Commonss|human=" with your user name attached
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Sjkoblentz: Compression is irrelevant as we allow many images formats, some are lossy (like jpg) and some are not (like png). We are only concerned with the image displayed, not how sharp the image is. The main criteria is displayed pixels. Wiki classes "resolution" as the sqrt(pixel count), so we can ask for "Low resolution" and mean a small pixel count. The standard guideline (and is is only a guideline) is 100,000 pixels, and 99.8% of non-free images are happily below that figure. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
Searching Commons
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Templates with <templatestyles> could not show the difference between the live template and the sandbox version when they were tested. This has now been fixed. <templatestyles> has a new 
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 15 17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
