Jump to content

User talk:B

Page contents not supported in other languages.
April 16, 2007 - never forget
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ColdNorthWind2 (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 6 November 2018 (→Image file for He Walked Through the Fields: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Bot request

Hi. User:B we would like to have yr bot for orphan image tagging on Marathi Wikipedia (MrWp). Would you like to help? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiven2240: Hi, I wouldn't feel comfortable running a bot on a language that I don't speak and couldn't be responsive to issues. But the source code is at User:B-bot/source. Or, potentially, I could provide someone with a Windows installer and instructions for setting it up in the Windows Task Scheduler. --B (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows CE 5 0 WordPad in Emulator.png

I stopped your bot because it was trying to delete a file that needs to be renamed by an admin instead (and then it will automatically become used). Could you take a look at the file by the way? � (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowak Kowalski: This looks obviated anyway so it doesn't matter ... but stopping the bot to prevent it from tagging an image is kinda like curing the disease by killing the patient. Alternate ways to handle it include, but are not limited to: (1) edit the {{orfud}} tag in the image description page to move the timer to some arbitrary date in the future (say, the year 2019); (2) edit the articles that use the image to point to the new version rather than the Commons image; (3) ask an admin to expedite the move. Turning off a bot that isn't malfunctioning is almost never a good idea. --B (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Stein

I was trying to trace back articles done on Alex Stein and found you had created one and then deleted it? How do I find your old article or can you tell me exactly what was in it and why it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghpink (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If you look at the "history" in the above article links, you will see that it was created by a banned user in defiance of his ban. If you are not Nick Aang or someone working on his behalf, this is not a ban on a new, original article by that title being created, provided that it otherwise meets Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. --B (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 5#File:Qazi Hussain Ahmad.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 5#File:Qazi Hussain Ahmad.jpg. Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

@Marchjuly: Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of previously deleted material. --B (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness of File PROD

Hello again. I appreciate your nomination of files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 22 and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 23. I wonder whether you are aware of alternatives, like WP:PROD. PROD has been extended to files since March last year; I hyperlinked for you to see the discussion. George Ho (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know we had that for files now. --B (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You can find PROD via Twinkle. George Ho (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Falwell image.

I have a question for you... I noticed your comments at an RfA and -in reading them- I clicked on a link to Jerry Falwell and checked out the main image there. I noticed some artifacting and was wondering if you scanned a physical image, or were given a digital image when you requested it. If the former, I'd like to touch base with you about getting it re-scanned in order to eliminating the artifacting (if that's possible: I understand that you might not even have the image anymore). Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: - they emailed me a digital image and I uploaded the original file to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't have the email any more, but I'm quite confident I uploaded the original file they sent. I used to use a pseudo-throwaway email address for Wikipedia that I didn't monitor very often (it was a Yahoo address) and unfortunately, I went too long without logging into my account, so some of my older Wikipedia-related emails are lost to time. --B (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite all right. I just kinda crossed my fingers that they sent you a physical photo and we could fix the compression by rescanning. But oh well. If I can find the time, I'll see if I can't fix it by hand. Thanks for the quick response, by the way! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in User:B/PD-Because Images

Hi B. A number of files in User:B/PD-Because Images are being flagged as WP:NFCC#9 violations by a bot. This is probably because their file copyright tags are none free. If this is a maintenance page that you are working on to verify whether the files should be PD, then perhaps you might want to see at WT:NFC if you can get it listed as an exemption per WP:NFEXMP; otherwise, the files will continue to be flagged as a NFCC#9 violation until they are either removed or their copyright license is change from non-free. For reference, the files in question are File:Co-Op Academy Swinton (The Swinton High School) logo.png, File:Ferdinand Zecca.jpg, File:Muhammad Fadhel al-Jamali.png, File:St Bartholomew's Church, Burnley, Melbourne 1910.jpg, File:St Bartholomew's Church, Burnley 1885.jpg, File:Teubner covers Gk.jpg and File:The Wayside Calvary at St Bartholomew's Church, Burnley in the late 1950s.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I am going through them and (1) removing the obvious copyvios and (2) using better tags where one is available. Virtually all PD-because images should be tagged with something else - either they have something ridiculous like {{PD-because|it's on the internet for free}} or they have something for which there is a better template like {{PD-because|published in 1950 and the copyright was not renewed}}. Most of the ones in your list are tagged as PD, but have a fair-use rationale anyway and if they really are legitimately PD, hen the answer is just to remove the rationale. --B (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--B (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking those files. They only got flagged because they were in your user space. If there are lots of these files which need to be verified, it might be a good idea to add them to Category:Possibly free images or even create a new maintenance category Category:Possibly unfree images which could be covered by WP:NFEXMP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I had my druthers, we would replace {{PD-because}} with {{subst:nld}}. All licenses/claims of PD on Wikipedia ought to be verified ... but PD-because and NoRightsReserved are the most prone to abuse and least likely to be right. --B (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Reale page - copyright holder permission pending

Good day!

My brother-in-law, Aldo Reale, took the photo of his father, the artist Nicholas Reale, which currently appears at the bottom of the Nicholas Reale Wikipedia entry.

Aldo has given me permission to upload the photo, as I built the webpage.

I am trying to get an email from Aldo giving full permission for the picture to be shared on Wiki Commons. In the meantime, on the Wikipedia page, do I tag the photo with {{OTRS pending|year=2018|month=September|day=01}} or with {{OTRS Pending}} ?

The code is different but the message displayed is the same....

Johnnydogmatic (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnnydogmatic: I believe this is in reference to File:Nicholas Albert Reale, working in his studio, Hillside, New Jersey.jpg. In this particular case, neither tag is necessary since there is already an {{OTRS received}} tag there. The {{OTRS pending}} tag without the date will automatically have the date added by the bot. But in this case, an OTRS agent has already reviewed the email and stated that the email is not sufficient. Please note that the wording "full permission for the picture to be shared on Wiki Commons" is not going to be sufficient for Wikipedia - Wikipedia requires that the copyright holder agree to license the image under the terms of a free content license, such as the "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license". I have edited the deletion tag to delay the pending deletion until September 22 to give you some more time to communicate with the copyright holder and OTRS. --B (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am chasing up my brother-in-law to make sure this is done. Johnnydogmatic (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this...

Note that there are other problems with Wikipedia's own templates because of edits to the templates. For example, check {{attribution}}. When the template was created in 2005, it said that This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use this image for any purpose, provided the copyright holder is properly attributed. At some point, someone added a second sentence: Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other uses are permitted. The second sentence is only legally binding if it was added to the template before the template was posted to the file information page. {{No rights reserved}} is another template where the licence text was changed at some point. If you are looking at these old templates, also pay attention to these changes to the template wording. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Stefan2: I found the end of the alphabet at [1]. I haven't found the beginning yet. I think a good half of the images that originally had this tag were copyright violations - just crap people uploaded from the internet and said "this sounds good". I really don't know why, when we were deprecating old templates, we didn't do something to make provision for legacy images tagged with them. It should be a simple matter - even 12 years ago - to have a bot block new uses of a template. Now, of course, we can do it with the edit filter ... but even then we could have done it with a bot. --B (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also thought about it that some of these images have proably been moved to Commons. This is really a mess. Alphachimpbot has 800ish deleted edits in the template migration that it did. From eyeballing it, 4/5 of them are redlinks, meaning that they were likely subsequently deleted as copyright violations. The others were presumably moved to Commons where they peacefully sit with the wrong template. Betacommand has more - maybe 1600 and a similar proportion are redlinks. So I may have underestimated when I said that half of the images using that tag were copyright violations ... "nearly all" would be more accurate. --B (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moses Baca mug shot.png FFD

Sorry if it felt like you were pulling teeth regarding the OTRS ticket. I was trying to disclose as little as possible. Since I don't know the details of how restoration impacts copyright, I didn't want to !vote or give a recommendation. I was hoping an OTRS agent who knows would see the note and !vote accordingly. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User page notifcations about images

As you know what you are doing... Can you do a review on some templates I wrote a while back? Namely {{un-confirmpermission1}} and {{Uw-notself1}} and {{un-deadsource}} and {{Add-author-I}}

Thanks.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think those templates are generally good, though I don't know that {{un-deadsource}} really needs a warning. For Flickr, we really need to discourage Flickr images from being uploaded here because Commons has a very good process for verification and if they're uploaded here, we're never going to get them verified and eventually the Flickr user will get bored, close their account, and we forever lose the ability to verify them (Flickr isn't archived by archive.org). For most other sources that may become dead, chances are either it's something we're using under a claim of fair use (an historic photo or a logo but the site we got it from has been reorganized) or it was never a legitimate license anyway (someone thinks it's "free" because they didn't pay money for it). We'd take care of 99% of the dead links if Flickr images got moved to Commons with all due haste. --B (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winter 2006 004.jpg

This was the sort of situation I had in mind for {{img-unclaimed}}/{{imgclaimed}}, See theard at Village Pump here - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Template:Media_by_uploader_and_how_to_confirm_uploads_are_in_fact_own_work?

A discussion that should possibly be brought to wider attention discreetly?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ShakespeareFan00: In the case of File:Winter 2006 004.jpg, the user attributed it to a photographer that matches the user's name. So I think it's fine - that's a claim of authorship and I think we could even add the {{own}} template if we wanted to. The real problem is if there is no claim of authorship at all - if the user attributes the image to "Bob Smith" but we have no way of knowing whether the user is Bob or a friend of Bob or Bob's spouse or just someone who likes Bob's website. --B (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long gone

I noticed the four messages you left at User talk:Swifty re images. He was indefinitely blocked six years ago, and has abandoned his account. Moriori (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Don't know what I was thinking. Moriori (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecating GFDL

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Deprecating GFDL Maybe it would be better to withdraw this proposal (4 support / 7 oppose) so we can make a more informative proposal later. A MassMessage is also underway (see m:User:Alexis Jazz/GFDL MassMessage) btw. The current proposal was started with so much doubt, it had a snowball's chance in hell. People assume there is a wealth of GFDL content out there.. when there just isn't. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images...

Note.. Prior to May 2006 epxlicit sourcing wasn't necessarily enforced in policy, you might want to consider this.

Also per an WP:AN thread, you might want to use {{img-unclaimed}},{{Media by uploader}} on stuff that's GFDL or CC licensed with no obvious source, but is most likely own work.

BTW Thanks for the effort in reducing the unsourced images...

My current queries on this were - https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29748 which I tweaked from your one to exclude some material that is less of a priority ( image likley to be PD age and so on)

My original query you already know about. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to see what you can do about https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18904 https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/28054 https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18909 In parallel :)

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ShakespeareFan00: Actually, images with no source have been subject to summary deletion since September 17, 2005[2]. The problem with considering things "grandfathered" back when we were less formal is that people just slapped a tag on anything they found on the internet. If we can reasonably infer that the uploader is the creator (they uploaded multiple images from the same camera/event/etc), then I think it's fine to do so ... but if it's a web-resolution photo, then chances are it is a copyright violation. --B (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the previous indication where that the cutoff was around 2006 , but thanks for taking into account the concern.. The non-presence of EXIF data is another indicator.. You are checking for such things I hope :). I'm at the moment , working on some of the really really old stuff that may be older than the upload log (2004), which is nearly prehistoric in Wikipedia terms :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you’re discussing c:COM:GOF. Images (particularly personal images) uploaded to Commons before OTRS was established are given more slack when it comes to permissions verification and sourcing; Wikipedia probably does something similar. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: c:COM:GOF is about evidence of permission for files authored by a third party. The issue here is not those files, but, rather, files that were uploaded and no source whatsoever was given. The uploader did not claim authorship. They didn't say where they got the image from. They might have taken it themselves, might have downloaded it from another website, or might have obtained it from an unknown third party. It used to be a common practice to paste the statement of permission onto the image description page and that's fine ... but of issue here are the images where we have no idea where they came from. --B (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest an RFC on this, at least that way the discussion is ONE location rather than split across numeruous talk pages, WP:AN,WP:MCQ and so on...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29813 is the really, really old material (pre the cutoff you mention). About 4800 entries to clear in terms of unrecognised sourcing.. Most are probably easily up-dateable to {{information}} so the actual number of genuinely unsourced items will be much much smaller. I'll be trying to clear some of these in the next few days. You might want to tweak your query a little :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop

You think this is a joke? You've been around long enough to know not to edit war. You're both experienced editors who should know better. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current season of the show is indisputably "science fiction" as confirmed by the litany of sources. There was a discussion on the talk page months ago (prior to the third season) where it was !voted that the show, at the time, did not constitute science fiction. Based on that old, out-of-date discussion, and despite the only editors who have commented on the issue since the third season came out agreeing that it is science fiction, Drmargi has decided that the show is still not science fiction and refuses to discuss the issue. --B (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an excuse for edit warring. There are other steps you can take to resolve the dispute. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reason for the removal of the image Paola Velardi in Siviglia, 2017.png from Paola Velardi's page

Hi, I received this message from you:

Thanks for uploading File:Paola_Velardi_in_Siviglia,_2017.png . The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

I do not understand the reason for this removal. The image was previously in the article I created about [Velardi] and I did not happen to see any specific explanation for its removal. The image was given to me by Paola Velardi herself for the purpose of completing the wiki page. I do not see any reasons for its removal from a logical standpoint.

If I put it back, can I be sure it won't be removed again?

Thanks

Ilaria Barletta —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ilaria Barletta (Chalmers): Wikipedia's policy concerning fair use images does not permit photos of living people to be used under a claim of fair use. So this photo s not appropriate to use. In any event, the bot did not remove it - a human did - the bot is only notifying you that someone removed it. In general, you need to look at the article history and find out who removed it and why, but in this particular case, the reason is that it doesn't comply with our rules. --B (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Logo for Eppley Airfield

Agree. We should use the logo as seen on www.flyomaha.com. Ssredg (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image file for He Walked Through the Fields

I received this message from you: "Thanks for uploading File:He Walked Through the Fields.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use... Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days." I got this message even after I uploaded a much-reduced version of the same file (He Walked Through the Fields2.jpg) which is now featured on the entry of the same name. It's been quite some time since I was last active on Wikipedia and I don't understand all the coding instructions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He_Walked_Through_the_Fields.jpg ColdNorthWind2 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)ColdNorthWind2[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B&oldid=867544652"