User talk:Ronhjones
on English Wikipedia
 |
|
| This is Ronhjones's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by post (talk • contribs) 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas !!!
|
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Hey, I wanted to bring the above article to admin's attention. More here [1] (reverts of my actions by Tm) and here: User_talk:Tm#Order_of_the_White_Eagle_(Poland). I'd be grateful if you could have a look. Thanks! Masur (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Let's try a revert by me and see what transpires. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Non-free reduce on John Hoskins (officer)
I'm concerned about the tagging this evening for File:JMHoskinsLifecover08141950.png. When I added the magazine cover, I'm sure I explained the rationale for non-free use satisfactorily. My concern is that the image is already quite low sized (206 KB) and the text of the image is barely readable at the current time (specifically the date and the subheading under the the name of the photograph, "Naval Air Boss in the Far East"). When I re-scaled this image before upload I was careful to scale down as far as possible, but still leave the text readable. I believe this is sufficient reason to avoid the arbitrary and automatic re-scaling proposed in the tag. Please consider removing the tag. Can I get another editors' view on this? BusterD (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Using the IMAGE RESIZE CALCULATOR linked on the Image reduce page, the target image resize is from 290 by 399 to the new size of 270 by 371. This change seems unnecessary, even by the standards demonstrated in the IMAGERES link. This seems like a very small difference, but I'm concerned about legibility as described above. I did several experiments while resizing to find the optimal minimum resolution, and I think I have it correct. BusterD (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BusterD: As WP:Image resolution says - you can have bigger, but make sure you explain why it's over 100,000 pixels in the rationale and then add {{non-free no reduce}}. You have done the correct thing, you have tried various sizes to get the smallest possible working size. It's not possible to have a guideline that works for every image, which is why that caveat it there. Naturally other editors cannot know the effect of being in guideline size until it's actually reduced - you already know what it would be like. FYI The reducing bot allows up to a 5% oversized image (i.e. 105,000 pixels), that was written into the bot many, many years ago - so someone decided way back to not to do very small adjustments. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorted out the revert to your size and added template - just explain in the fur that you have used the lowest size you could achieve. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the revert and the assist. Looking at the bot resized image, I feel vindicated in getting worked up about it. Just the tiny adjustment did what I thought, rendered the text illegible. Next time I'll be better prepared. BusterD (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorted out the revert to your size and added template - just explain in the fur that you have used the lowest size you could achieve. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BusterD: As WP:Image resolution says - you can have bigger, but make sure you explain why it's over 100,000 pixels in the rationale and then add {{non-free no reduce}}. You have done the correct thing, you have tried various sizes to get the smallest possible working size. It's not possible to have a guideline that works for every image, which is why that caveat it there. Naturally other editors cannot know the effect of being in guideline size until it's actually reduced - you already know what it would be like. FYI The reducing bot allows up to a 5% oversized image (i.e. 105,000 pixels), that was written into the bot many, many years ago - so someone decided way back to not to do very small adjustments. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion
The page Prakash Neupane (musician) which you recently deleted doesnot contains any copyright content. I think you should review page once and restore it .
Iampython (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Iampython: The text at http://prakashneupane.com/index.php/about/ is a match, and that page says "Copyright (C) Prakash Neupane " Ronhjones (Talk) 17:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Ronhjones Review once The Text at http://prakashneupane.com/index.php/about/ doesn’t match but yes i accept there is (C) Prakash Neupane but the text doesn’t match & that it doesnot violates and i think you should revert this page as i respect wikpedia rules & regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iampython (talk • contribs) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
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
- On Wikidata, the "save" button when you edit is now called "publish". This means all Wikimedia wikis have now changed from "Save page" to "Publish changes". This is to help new editors understand what it does. [2][3]
- Some edits will get an automatic tag on all wikis. This will happen when making a page a redirect, blanking a page, removing almost all content, undoing an edit, or rolling back an edit. You can see the tags for example in the recent changes feed, article history, user contributions or on your watchlist. Some wikis had already marked edits like these in other ways. [4]
- Special:UnusedFiles shows files that have been uploaded but are not used. It will show a file that is not used on the wiki it has been uploaded to, even if the file is used on another wiki. The new Special:GloballyUnusedFiles page on Commons only shows files that are not used on any wiki. [5]
- Structured discussions now uses the 2017 wikitext editor instead of its old custom one. This will work with your preference for wikitext or visual editor. The documentation has been updated. [6][7]
Problems
- Older versions of the Chrome web browser on mobile devices may see the PDF download button, but it does not work. The developers are looking into the problem. [8]
- With the new filters in the recent changes, "Exclude selected" in "Namespaces" did not work for "Saved filters" between 13 December and 2 January. When you loaded the saved filter all other namespaces were excluded instead. This has now been fixed. If you made any changes to your saved filters between 13 December and 2 January, you need to save your filters with excluded namespaces again. [9]
- The latest version of Google Chrome broke how section links are shown in the address bar. You now see
#R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9instead of#Résuméeven if MediaWiki did not encode it that way. This happened in early December. This problem has been solved. The fix will be in Chrome 64 (23 January) or Chrome 65 (6 March). [10] 
Some POST requests to the API took longer than usual in parts of December. This affected the Wikidata UI and some gadgets the most. It has now been fixed. [11]
Changes later this week
- Wikidata will be moved to its own database servers. This is because it is growing and needs more resources. Because of this you will be able to read but not edit Wikidata and the German Wikipedia between 06:00 and 06:30 UTC on 9 January. You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. This includes editing the language links on other wikis. [12]
- The font size in the editing window will change slightly for some users. It will now look the same on all browsers and operating systems. [13][14]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 January. It will be on all wikis from 11 January (calendar).- WikiEditor's ResourceLoader modules have been simplified to one:
ext.wikiEditor. All the other modules are now deprecated aliases and should be removed. [15]
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 9 January at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 10 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there.
Way back in 2014 you protected I Come in Peace. Can it be lifted, and let's give IP's a chance again? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Chaheel Riens: Why not.
Done. If it starts to get vandals again, we might try pending changes instead. Let me know if you see any issues. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
IF Interested - seems an editor go-round at "2018 in science" may need some help sorting things out? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
How To Fix Copyright Issue on Gianni Blu Wikipedia Page
Hello, hope all is well.
I just read your comments on my page and would like to know if you can assist in helping me resolve the issue. I still dont know what the specific issue is, only that it has something to do with Spotify. Is there a way I can find out the details of the copyright issue at hand?
Also, is it possible to just revise the copyrighted text? I would like to resolve this ASAP.
Thanks for your time.
Elliott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebogdan47 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ebogdan47: If you click "Copyvios report" link (after the https://open.spotify.com/artist/7xpdGx95yjp1d4c6dViRSx link), you will see what text is matched. Assuming you wish to rewrite the bad sections - then click the third "[show]" link on the right hand side - a set of instructions follows showing how to create a temp sub-page and allowing rewrite. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Thx for that Ron, I wanted to run a tool where the same editor had blanked the page 16 July after initiating AN/I 15 July concerning the prose-adding editor, resulting in immediate indef. The tool reminder has come at an opportune time as I want to restore the content, allegedly from a newspaper eulogy.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If i change the text of the original source will the wikipedia page automatically update and let go of the copyright claim? I wrote all of the text that its picking up from Spotify but creating a temp sub page sounds messy. If I make a temp sub page will the Gianni Blu Wikipedia page eventually revert to its original form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebogdan47 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ebogdan47: You have to alter the sub-page, as the page is in a list for processing, and they will expect a sub-page to be done. If there is a temp page that is copyright free, then they will fix the main page.Ronhjones (Talk) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Re-instate my blocked account
Hi Ronhjones,
You have permanently blocked my account. Can you please look into my request?
I am pretty new to this community and did not know about not to upload copyright logos issue.
Can you please re-instate my account? I work for Myntra and thought it would help. I would do all the possible things/processes to ensure this image is deleted and these never occur in future :)
With all good faith awaiting your response at the earliest.
Thank you! Pinaki(Pinaki1001 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC))
- @Pinaki1001: The block on commons came about because it appeared that you were using multiple accounts. After the image c:File:Myntra logo.png - uploaded by User:P1nak1 was deleted, it was later uploaded by yourself. The similar user names and images lends one to think it's the same person. Can you say if these are your accounts? Ronhjones (Talk) 18:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair use size
Hi. A fair number of my fair use images have been reduced in size. I can see that you're doing this in general and I m not being singled out, so absolutely no problem. I would just like to know for the future, to avoid this having to happen again, what the criteria is for size. Is it a linear dimension along one side, the area, or what? I ask because I thought I was following policy when I uploaded them, but obviously I was mistaken. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The guideline is at WP:Image resolution, and (since 2011) is 100,000 pixels. I think it might have been 300px on one side before that - not sure, so long ago. It is a guideline (and not a fixed policy), as sometimes an image gets badly corrupted at that size - for these cases the guideline explains that {{non-free no reduce}} can be added along with some reasoning in the FUR, to keep an oversize image. Although the guideline was set in 2011, there was no way of easily finding oversize images until the CirrusSearch engine was improved just over a year ago - and I have been slowing working through them since. If you are not sure about an image, or haven't the time to work out the correct size then just add the {{non-free reduce}} template - the reducing bots (two at present, they have a habit of stalling) will only reduce images that are needed to be done - if not required, they just remove the template. The bots allow a 5% oversize, so up to 105,000 pixels does not get reduced. Hope that all makes sense. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- It certainly does, and thank you for it. I was operating (for the most part) by the 300px/side guideline, but I will certainly keep 100K pixels in mind from now on, and tag those images which would make it harder for the reader at a smaller size. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Well, thanks for the {{non-free no reduce}} guidance that I didn't know of; I'm guessing that you didn't read my oversize rationale before manually applying the reduce bot? And can I request it to be restored per original reason stated? I had forgotten to check and Mustaf Missed on watchlist. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Wow... Ogri, now THAT takes me back... I've a whole book here, somewhere... Paul Sample - Brilliant cartoonist, obviously a biker, not often a cartoon bike is recognisable. :-) Ronhjones (Talk) 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Muchas. Luckily I had something in the house suitable - there was pre-existing some good work put into creating the prose.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Wow... Ogri, now THAT takes me back... I've a whole book here, somewhere... Paul Sample - Brilliant cartoonist, obviously a biker, not often a cartoon bike is recognisable. :-) Ronhjones (Talk) 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Well, thanks for the {{non-free no reduce}} guidance that I didn't know of; I'm guessing that you didn't read my oversize rationale before manually applying the reduce bot? And can I request it to be restored per original reason stated? I had forgotten to check and Mustaf Missed on watchlist. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- It certainly does, and thank you for it. I was operating (for the most part) by the 300px/side guideline, but I will certainly keep 100K pixels in mind from now on, and tag those images which would make it harder for the reader at a smaller size. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Chiming in: I don't think File:Doomfist.png needed to be resized (275*399 = ~110k). 100k is an arbitrary number to ensure fair use protections for copyright holders. I appreciate your work on this in general, as many files need it, but it would be nice if your script/process became somewhat more tolerant. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Czar: Possibly. 110k to 100k is unlikely to make any difference to the article's depiction. I would like to get to a situation where non-free images are either in the guideline OR in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction, and thus no unknown "grey" areas - although there is already a defined tolerated oversize of 5%, where the bot will not reduce the image. Then (and only then) it will be far easier to search for the 50 or so oversized (over 105k, allowing for the bot system) new non-free images that happen every day. Ronhjones (Talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Since the purposes of fair use are dependent on the context and most editors won't know to add that specific category, it would make sense to add a toggle for that category/function to an existing fair use template (or else make a new template). I think it'd be reasonable to crank the tolerance to 125/130k, as that's usually an indicator that the uploader had made an effort to produce a low-res image to protect the copyright holder's commercial interests in higher-res production. czar 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Czar: Possibly. 110k to 100k is unlikely to make any difference to the article's depiction. I would like to get to a situation where non-free images are either in the guideline OR in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction, and thus no unknown "grey" areas - although there is already a defined tolerated oversize of 5%, where the bot will not reduce the image. Then (and only then) it will be far easier to search for the 50 or so oversized (over 105k, allowing for the bot system) new non-free images that happen every day. Ronhjones (Talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Reduced size of MIB Group letter image
Hello Ronhjones,
Please explain why you requested for my image File:Medical_Information_Bureau_2017_No-Record_Letter_With_Redactions.png to be reduced in resolution? The whole point of this image was for readers to be able to read the letter from MIB Group. At the reduced resolution, it is unreadable and useless for the article (MIB Group) in which it is being used. I have posted a discussion in File_talk:Medical_Information_Bureau_2017_No-Record_Letter_With_Redactions.png. I respectfully request that this change be undone. --Wykypydya (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Wykypydya: Restored for now, and tagged. Please see WP:Image resolution - the reasoning for being oversized needs to be fully explained in the Fair Use Rationale, especially as it's so large - and I suspect the biggest, by a mile, non free image on Wikipedia.Ronhjones (Talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. Would you say that I am going about using this material in the wrong way? Should I instead be using something like a PDF file? Do you know of any other examples of similar material on Wikipedia such as copies of letters, and is there a good example that I should follow? --Wykypydya (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Wykypydya:I agree it's a tricky one and maybe png is not the correct vehicle for such a subject. Let me look further into it, and I'll come back to you Ronhjones (Talk) 14:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Based on your suggestions, I tried making 4 cropped pngs with Photoshop, then reducing 50% (text still readable), then combining into PDF. Wiki will describe that PDF as 562 × 750. still large, but not in the same league as the original png. My version (if you want to use it is at http://www.ronjones.org.uk/misc/Letter.pdf, or you can use your own software. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for generating and posting that. One concern that I also have is how blind readers using Wikipedia with a screen reader would be able to benefit from the image. PDFs have the ability to be "searchable PDFs" by running optical character recognition on the text and embedding the recognized text, but the OCR is typically not perfect. Otherwise, I might be behooved to go through the grueling task of typing up the letter contents in the file description for the benefit of blind users. Using a PDF was just a proposal, but I'm still wondering what's really the best-known method here? I've probably come across similar material on Wikipedia like images of entire letters before, but I can't quite recall where they would have been. Wondering if perhaps we could solicit a recommendation from an expert on this and/or someone who may have dealt with similar material before? Thanks! --Wykypydya (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Wykypydya:I tried adding OCR, but it was not perfect on the full size version, and worse at 50%. I've only got Nuance Power PDF. It might be better with Acrobat Pro. Maybe the png is not a good basis to start (I do scans and PDF at work - we use black and white tiff from the scanner and Acrobat Pro - even then it can be hit and miss or the output quality.). I've seen plenty of PDFs on commons, in my view most are not OCR. Since it's a non-free image, one could ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I went ahead and manually added all of the letter's text to the file page so that anyone can read it with standard Web browsing, including blind people using screen readers. I then also included the image in the article Fair Credit Reporting Act, so now there are two articles using the image. In that case, I suppose the remaining questions are whether the PNG file is still a suitable type for this image, and whether I have included the image in the articles appropriately. I see that if I increase the size of the image with the "thumb" or "frameless" argument and the "upright=scale" argument, then it scales in a "fixed" manner that can overwrite the left-hand Wikipedia navigation bar depending on the size of the browser window (and the screen size of the device that's viewing it). It would be nicer if the image could be "stretched" to fit the available width of the article in the browser window. Unless and until there's a solution to that, I'll leave it as a "gallery" thumbnail for now, and readers can read the letter by either viewing the included text on the file page or opening and zooming in on the image. Please let me know if that is workable as-is, or any other suggestions on how to further improve this! I do hope that I have added value to these two articles by including this letter as an "exhibit". Thanks, --Wykypydya (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Wykypydya:I tried adding OCR, but it was not perfect on the full size version, and worse at 50%. I've only got Nuance Power PDF. It might be better with Acrobat Pro. Maybe the png is not a good basis to start (I do scans and PDF at work - we use black and white tiff from the scanner and Acrobat Pro - even then it can be hit and miss or the output quality.). I've seen plenty of PDFs on commons, in my view most are not OCR. Since it's a non-free image, one could ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for generating and posting that. One concern that I also have is how blind readers using Wikipedia with a screen reader would be able to benefit from the image. PDFs have the ability to be "searchable PDFs" by running optical character recognition on the text and embedding the recognized text, but the OCR is typically not perfect. Otherwise, I might be behooved to go through the grueling task of typing up the letter contents in the file description for the benefit of blind users. Using a PDF was just a proposal, but I'm still wondering what's really the best-known method here? I've probably come across similar material on Wikipedia like images of entire letters before, but I can't quite recall where they would have been. Wondering if perhaps we could solicit a recommendation from an expert on this and/or someone who may have dealt with similar material before? Thanks! --Wykypydya (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Based on your suggestions, I tried making 4 cropped pngs with Photoshop, then reducing 50% (text still readable), then combining into PDF. Wiki will describe that PDF as 562 × 750. still large, but not in the same league as the original png. My version (if you want to use it is at http://www.ronjones.org.uk/misc/Letter.pdf, or you can use your own software. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Wykypydya:I agree it's a tricky one and maybe png is not the correct vehicle for such a subject. Let me look further into it, and I'll come back to you Ronhjones (Talk) 14:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. Would you say that I am going about using this material in the wrong way? Should I instead be using something like a PDF file? Do you know of any other examples of similar material on Wikipedia such as copies of letters, and is there a good example that I should follow? --Wykypydya (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
If I read the guideline right it said that cover art is "250 × 400 pixels". the image right now is at "268 × 400 pixels", can any wiggle room be added here without making the wording on the image unreadable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: Already tagged for no reduction Ronhjones (Talk) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Okay thanks! =) I do my best to comply with the guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Horton house photo
Do you really think that File:Horton House image from 1927.jpg needs to be reduced in size? It is already only 57KB. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bubba73: Wiki does not care about KB - sometimes images get reduced and the size goes up. The guideline is <100,000 pixels. You can have bigger if necessary - you need to add {{tl:non-free no reduce} and a reasoning in the FUR. Remember non-free images are only for articles, has the view in the article deteriorated? Ronhjones (Talk) 14:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is already < 100,000 pixels. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Whoops, when I checked the number of pixels, it had already been reduced. So I think everything is OK. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Ronhjones (Talk) 16:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Whoops, when I checked the number of pixels, it had already been reduced. So I think everything is OK. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)