April 16, 2007 - never forget

User talk:B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


File:Bishop's Stortford FC.svg[edit]

Do you know what's different between the first revision (2009-05-31T11:28:58, 0 × 0 pixels) and the second revision (2009-05-31T13:17:11, 479 × 605 pixels)? The 0 × 0 pixel version has a clickable "revert" button whereas the 479 × 605 pixel version does not. The timestamp is also typeset differently.

Now check the API: [1]

  1. <ii timestamp="2015-01-01T17:22:50Z"/> is the current revision. It is not deleted.
  2. <ii timestamp="2009-05-31T13:17:11Z" filehidden=""/> is the second revision. The "filehidden" part informs that the file has been deleted, and this is something my bot looks for. There is no "archivename" given as the file has been deleted.
  3. <ii timestamp="2009-05-31T11:28:58Z" archivename="20090531131711!Bishop's_Stortford_FC.svg"/> is the earliest revision. There is no "filehidden" (implying that the revision hasn't been deleted) and there is an "archivename" (implying that the revision can be accessed using that file name), but there is no link to the file 20090531131711!Bishop's_Stortford_FC.svg from the file information page.

Any idea of what is going on here? Since the API and the oldimage table report that the file has an old revision from 2009-05-31T11:28:58 which has not been deleted, my bot tags the file for having old revisions, but admins remove the tag without deleting the revision (see the history of the file information page). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly related to [2]? I had had a problem un-revdeleting a file and reported it. In this case, I was able to view the deleted file, download it, and re-upload it. They say they fixed the bug, but I assume that the fix was in the initial delete operation, meaning anything broken by the bug is still broken.
On File:Bishop's Stortford FC.svg, the first revision (7:28, 31 May 2009) shows up as black to me - the image revision is not available for me to un-rev-delete and if I hit the "del/undel" button, it doesn't show up as rev deleted. If you look at the page logs, Explicit had a problem with the image in 2012 and apparently tried restoring something to solve it. I can see the version from 9:17, 31 May 2009 using the normal admin stuff and it looks just like a larger version of the image we have now.
It used to be, in the olden days, if an image was deleted, it was gone. Then, one of the trolling message boards decided that they would try to troll Wikipedia by tagging images for deletion that shouldn't be deleted. So the software was very quickly modified to allow for images to be undeleted, but it has always been kinda buggy, particularly if an image stays deleted for a long time. Revdelete didn't used to exist and before revdelete, you had to delete everything, then selectively restore what you wanted restored. It is possible that someone deleted the whole thing, then the restore didn't work because (reasons) and now we're stuck with a bad revision.
If the examples of this are few enough, maybe what we just do is delete the whole thing and then restore all of it except for the bad orphaned version? That way, your bot won't think there is something that needs to be deleted. --B (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what is causing this or whether it is related to phabricator:T97222 or not, but something should be done. I don't know if I should change my bot (or how I should change it – the revision is reported by the server as a normal revision which hasn't been deleted).
There are probably other files with the same problem hiding somewhere. Based on the way the admin script apparently handles the revision deletion, these should show up in the first few edits my bot does on the days on which admins have tried deleting the old revisions. I found no other problem files by looking at the first few bot edits from today and yesterday. One way to get around the problem is to simply add a "bots" or "nobots" template, but that doesn't solve the original problem and would prevent the addition of {{subst:orfurrev}} if additional revisions are uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I deleted it to purge that revision from history (the old fashioned way). When I deleted it, there is now a blue link in the revision listing at Special:Undelete/File:Bishop's_Stortford_FC.svg (which should let me view the revision). Interestingly, it tells me that the image was 612 × 792 and 29,565 bytes - info that we did not know before - but when I click on it, it gives me this error: "Although this PHP script (/w/index.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-swift-eqiad/local-deleted/k/m/l/kmlt69k6l63cayj6kjvmytp7umavvb6.svg) does not." I have restored it without the bad version. --B (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Very strange... Maybe it should be reported in phabricator:, unless it already has been reported. Thanks for fixing this file! --Stefan2 (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Another one to take a look at is File:Sprint Nextel logo.svg as the revision from 2007 might have this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: This one looks like a different problem. Notably, the API [3] doesn't include this broken revision. I deleted the other two old ones so this one looks to be good as is - I'm assuming that it won't trigger the query any more? If it does, let me know and I can do the same "old fashioned" delete/undelete. --B (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I regenerated quarry:query/1226 and found that the file still is reported by the database as having an orphaned revision. On the other hand, the API doesn't mention that revision at all. My bot is supposed to check that the file has orphaned revisions according to both the API and the database, so I guess the bot won't tag that file again, but the situation is weird. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, I removed the corrupted revision the old fashioned way. I get the same behavior now - it shows me that the deleted revision is "501 × 194 (9,322 bytes)", but if I try to view it, I get "Although this PHP script (/w/index.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-swift-eqiad/local-deleted/7/b/5/7b5q3dm5zupbenpbs429mivucnercql.svg) does not.". --B (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • More: File:Try sample.ogg and File:WOFL open.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: File:Try sample.ogg had the same problem - I deleted it and restored it without the broken revision. File:WOFL open.png does not appear to have been the same problem. I can view all of the revisions. There was one deleted old version - I have restored it and then used revision hiding to remove both from public view. --B (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • More: File:RAF logo.svg & File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg & File:Kdbc 2012.png. What is causing these strange revisions? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: Yes check.svg Done. In all three of these, it looks like revdelete was previously used to get rid of the revision in question. But somehow, it became un-revdeleted, but with the file still missing. I have no explanation. --B (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Today's files: File:Hockey India League Logo.jpg & File:Nanjing University Logo.svg & File:Holger Czukay - Radio Wave Surfer.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And today's files: File:NFS Most Wanted (2012) gameplay.png & File:NFS Most Wanted (2012) gameplay.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: Yes check.svg Done. That last one - File:NFS Most Wanted (2012) gameplay.png - is listed twice. Was there a different one you had intended to list? Oddly, with this one, when I deleted the file and then looked at it using Special:Undelete, the missing revision was now visible again and I was able to view it. (Normally, when we do this, I get the error described above - "Although this PHP script (/w/index.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-swift-eqiad/local-deleted/k/m/l/kmlt69k6l63cayj6kjvmytp7umavvb6.svg) does not.". So I removed that revision using revdelete and restored the whole thing. Since you had it listed twice and I had already opened it in two different windows, I was able to confirm, just to make sure I wasn't crazy, that it had showed up with a black link prior to me deleting it. So oddly, somehow, deleting it seems to have re-associated it with the deleted revision. --B (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Copy and paste error: I meant to list two different files. I don't remember the name of the other file, but it should show up again in a week, so let's just skip it for now. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Two more: File:RHS logo.png and File:TMG - Highway Dont Care cover.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done --B (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Another one: File:Black Arrow (telefilm).jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done --B (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you know what's wrong with File:Fly SAX-logo.jpg? There is a 'revert' button but it isn't possible to see the old revision. The timestamp is in bold whereas the timestamp of the other files mentioned above wasn't in bold. Note that both revisions have exactly the same timestamp, meaning that they were both uploaded on the same second. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stefan2: Yes check.svg Done - no idea what was wrong with this one. Unlike most of the others, once I deleted the entire page, the bad revision became available and I was able to revdelete just that revision. Oddly, it still shows up in bold. I looked did view->source in my browser and it is getting the "filehistory-selected" CSS class, which, I would assume, means that the software believes this is the current version for some reason. --B (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Strange. It may have to do with the fact that both revisions have the same timestamp. Maybe Mediawiki can't handle this situation properly? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Dodheimsgard KronetTilKonge.jpg is apparently an image with this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done --B (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:The Sweet and the Bitter.jpg is another one. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphan tag for File:Taneja_Group_logo.png[edit]

Greetings, I know it says you are semi-retired but I'm hoping you can help me with this when you get a chance to see it. I am currently working on a page that has been userfied in my sandbox, and I have a logo being used in it. It is tagged daily by Bbot as an orphan image, but to my knowledge it says it is active on User:Garchy/Taneja Group. Is there a tag I can use to show this is being used in an article being built? Thanks - Garchy (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Garchy: Under WP:NFCC#9, images used under a claim of fair use are only permitted in article space (published articles, not drafts). For File:Taneja Group logo.png in particular, honestly, this one looks like it could just be tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} ... logos consisting completely of text are generally considered to not be subject to copyright protection. But for future reference, should the need arise for a different image, the best practice is to either leave the image out completely or, if you need something in there for spacing, you could use a placeholder image. You could use something like File:Placeholder_male_superhero_c.png or File:Placeholder logo.png or File:Wikipedia non-free placeholder.png with the plan being that you will replace it once you are ready to publish the article. --B (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@B:, thank you so much for the advice! Cheers, Garchy (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Cleveland Browns uniform files[edit]

I was wondering if you could please add an orphan tag to the files File:New Cleveland Browns uniforms 2015.png and File:Cleveland Browns uniforms 2015.png? I can't seem to upload it to where it shows a thumbnail. I'm requesting that both images be deleted immediately. Please help? Thanks. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: If a non-free image remains orphaned for more than a day, B-bot will automatically add the appropriate tag. No manual action is necessary. --B (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Delta Goodrem - Wings.jpg[edit]

Hello, I recently made an article for Delta Goodrem's new song "Wings", but it was deemed unnotable because it won't be able to chart for another week, and was turned into a redirect. However, since the cover art is now orphaned and is non-free, it has been tagged for speedy deletion and will be deleted before I have a chance to recreate the page. Is there anything I can do? --CalMillbo (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@CalMillbo: Under WP:NFCC#9, non-free images are only permitted in article space (not drafts). Once the improved article is re-submitted and accepted, either re-upload the image or make a request at WP:REFUND for it to be undeleted. You can, if desired, use a placeholder in your draft like File:Non-free image placeholder.png and put the correct image name in a comment. That way, even if someone other than you moves the image into article space, they will see the placeholder and know that they need to replace it with the correct image. --B (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphan non-free image tag for File:Cryo-Cell Logo.png[edit]

Hi, i hope you can still help me, though I see that you are perhaps not still very active on Wikipedia. I myself am new to Wikipedia and not sure how to rectify the error i made in trying to upload the company logo to the page currently on Wikidpedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryo-Cell_International for use in the InfoBox. I received the message that 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. Correct. It has never been used in an article but I wish to use it for the first time. Can you please advise me what steps to take to link and associate and get displayed the logo with the article. Please forgive me if this is obvious. As i said, I am new. Thanks - Wuenschp (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Wuenschp User:Wuenschp

@Wuenschp: I have added File:Cryo-Cell Logo.png to the infobox of Cryo-Cell International. Please see [4] for the edit I made - when you are adding a logo to the infobox, you normally just have to add the filename after the "logo=" parameter. --B (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thank you so much for your help and for your explanation Wuenschp

Eric Keyes[edit]

Hello. You recently deleted a page for musician Eric Keyes because nearly all claims were unsourced. I understand that the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. I would like to resolve this issue by including more sources. Is it possible for you to please restore this deleted page temporarily for me to cite some more sources? Feel free to contact me via email too if necessary at melissa@wealthyrecords.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.123.48 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@76.183.123.48: I have undeleted the article and moved it to Draft:Eric Keyes, where it may be improved, prior to submitting it for review. Please consider creating an account, as this will make it easier for you to receive notifications when someone takes an action regarding the article or replies to a message that you send. --B (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I do have an account, I forgot my password and I am currently waiting on an email to reset it. My user name is MelissaK88. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to remedy this problem. I was hoping you might me able to help me also to understand which claims would be most useful to cite. I noticed a citation is needed here-

"At one point the band's website[3] was one of the most popular sites on the internet due to the clever animation file and subsequently spearheaded the "indie movement" and guerrilla marketing on the web.[citation needed]" (copied and pasted directly from page)

Would this citation be sufficient or do I need to add more? And if so which claims do you think would be best to cite? Thank you so much for your time, I really appreciate your help. -Melissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.123.48 (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@76.183.123.48 and MelissaK88: Ideally, every claim the article makes would be cited, with the possible exceptions of obvious tautologies or facts that are universally known and agreed on, e.g. 2+2=4. Citations need to be from third party reliable sources independent of the subject so no, a link to the website itself is not sufficient to source any of these claims: (1) it is one of the most popular sites on the internet, (2) it has a clever animation file, (3) the clever animation file is the reason it is one of the most popular sites on the internet, (4) they spearheaded the "indie movement", or (5) they spearheaded guerrilla marketing on the web. If you are going to make those claims, they need to be backed up by a third party source. --B (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Should've Gone Home.jpg[edit]

Hello!

I received this message, but I didn't understand qhat it means. "Thanks for uploading File:Should've Gone Home.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. 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 mean, I first had uploaded one version of the single cover of Should've Gone Home, but then I replaced it with the official cover, which is being used on the infobox of the article. Will both versions be deleted? Or only the first one, the one that is not being used?

Thanks. LincolnAloísio (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@LincolnAloísio: The bot sending that message is only referring to File:Should've Gone Home.jpg. It does not know (or care) that you have uploaded a very similar image at File:Should've Gone Home Måns Zelmerlöw.jpeg. The newer image is not going to be deleted - only the old one that is no longer used. --B (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Battleground 2015[edit]

Please don't remove the poster of Battleground 2015 . This is the official poster . See on the internet . Thanks Mohamed Eldakak (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohamed Eldakak: As far as I can tell, the only reason the image was in any danger of being removed is that you uploaded a copy of it to Commons and then orphaned the local copy. File:WWE Battleground 2015 Official Poster.jpg is copyrighted and is not licensed under a license that is acceptable to Commons (or any license for that matter). It cannot be uploaded to Commons. The reason that this local copy was tagged for deletion is that it was no longer in use. If you don't orphan it again, it will not be deleted. --B (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot Thing[edit]

There's no need for your bot to leave a note about an orphaned image when a better version is found to replace it. =) Gleechr.jpg was replaced by Glee - The Music, The Christmas Album by Glee Cast.png and that's perfectly fine as PNG versions are ideal (I work at Bulbapedia too, that's what they prefer too). If a better version is put on a page, I don't need to be notified of deletion of the older one. Just let the older one be deleted unless it's drastically different. CycloneGU (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@CycloneGU: There is no way for the bot to know whether the replacement image is completely different or just a slight change. You can opt out of notifications completely by adding one of the {{bots}} or {{nobots}} tags suggested at the top of user:B-bot, but the bot has no way of knowing that the image was replaced or what kind of image it was replaced with. --B (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
True, I guess I just expect Megaman to just suddenly be doing all these requests at some point someday or something. (Think artificial intelligence. LOL) CycloneGU (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


File:SJGIANTSUNI.PNG[edit]

Hi B, I was curious if you could reverse this deletion for me. It appears the image was orphaned by a good faith mistake of another user in January when he was deleting an weakly sourced paragraph the image was contained in. The image was not removed by any purposeful action. Unfortunately the original file is gone and cannot be re-uploaded so reversal is the only way to re-obtain it short of full recreation of it which I don't have time for presently. Your help is appreciated. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gateman1997: Yes check.svg Done --B (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi - I think you are right and I have uploaded the logo for Proud Canaries twice - sorry! The one marked that is not linked to the article can be removed. Thanks. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)