This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
<ii timestamp="2015-01-01T17:22:50Z"/> is the current revision. It is not deleted.
<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.
<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)
@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)
@Stefan2: 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)
@Stefan2: 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)
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: 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)
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)
@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)
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)
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
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?
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)
Battleground 2015
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
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)
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)
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)
Hi B. I had occasion to read the OTRS history for this file... it seems we have a reduced-size version, which may have made sense before under a Fair Use rationale, but do you think we can restore the full image (and move to Commons) now? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Storkk: I have restored the larger version. You (or anyone else) can move the image to Commons if desired. --B (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, B. I have now done so. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:Self
Hello B. I have been looking into why some files uploaded and licensed by their author are in Category:Files licensed by third parties, which didn't seem right. Please could you take a look at an edit you made? I'm wondering if the two categories need to be the other way around in the "#if" function? As in: {{#if: {{{author|}}} | author is supplied | author is not present, or blank }}
Thanks! – Wdchk (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wdchk: You're absolutely right - the two parameters are backwards. I have fixed it. --B (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! The self-published images seem to be categorized correctly now. – Wdchk (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Logos on DLL Group
Dear B., I noticed you have deleted the logos on the Wikipedia article DLL Group. The changes in logos show the changes DLL as a company has undergone and therefore are an essential part of the historical section of the page. I have seen that other company pages (such as Philips) also have different logos on the page. I hope you understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amina.Sabanovic (talk • contribs) 12:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Amina.Sabanovic: I did not previously delete them, but since you have pointed them out to me, I have removed them now. Fair use images are not permitted in galleries. Please see WP:NFG. It is almost never going to be acceptable to use fair use images that you don't discuss in the text of the article (aside from a single logo in the infobox). --B (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear B, please note that this logo [5] has not been challenged since 2006.
Fair use
File:RedSwastikaSchool.jpg
Uploaded by A10203040
Uploaded: 6 August 2006
It is used elsewhere.
Why do you want to remove it on the Swastika page then? It helps illustrate the usage of swastikas in Asian cultures. It increases our understanding of its usage in public/academic (school emblems) contexts there. Zezen (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that a non-compliant image has not been notifced for a long period of time does not mean that it is acceptable. The question is whether or not a lack of this image in the article would impair the reader's understanding of the topic. As there are a host of other examples of logos that incorporate the swastika, the answer is obvious - no it would not. --B (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
RE: Orphaned non-free image File:New Natural News logo, June 2015.png
Recently, your B-bot indicated in my User talk page the fact that a photo no free license for a TV series, with his logo, that I uploaded, would removed of Wikipedia in one week because it is not in any Wikipedia page. Actually, the picture, after be uploaded, I saw that is very dark and I uploaded other picture of the same thing. So, I would like to remove the previous picture but I can not, because I am not a administrator. So, the photo have not that wait one week to be removed: you can remove the picture now, if you consider that this is suitable. --Isinbill (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
If you do not object to the removal, no further action is necessary. Someone will remove it once the week expires. The purpose of giving notice is just in case it was inadvertently removed from an article - you are given a notice so that you can add it back. Since you have no desire to do so, no action is needed. --B (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kyle Nightingale: I have removed the tag. For future reference, you are welcome to remove the tag yourself, or, if you do nothing, my bot will automatically remove it the night before the image is due to be deleted. --B (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Your bot says File:Avengers36panel.jpg will be removed since it appears in no articles. It absolutely appears at Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) with the caption "First costume (and bouffant hairdo). From The Avengers #36 (Jan. 1967), art by Don Heck." Please correct. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: There is a bug IN WIKIPEDIA where, if vandalism is reverted using rollback, image links do not get updated. In order to try to get around this bug, my bot purges the article given in the {{Non-free use rationale}} template to see if maybe the image is actually in use but the links just haven't been updated. It looks like, in this particular case, the link in question is a redirect and so that's why my purging it didn't work. I will make that change to my bot so that it can resolve redirects when it tries purging the link. --B (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: FYI, this updated process is now in place. In my code, I now resolve the redirect and if the page on the fair use rationale is a redirect, I will correctly purge that page.
PagepgPurgedPage=newPage(site2,strArticleName);pgPurgedPage.Load();pgPurgedPage.ResolveRedirect();SleepApiDelay();if(pgPurgedPage.title!=strArticleName){// Okay, we have a redirect - we need to go ahead and purge that toosite2.GetWebPage("https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=purge&titles="+Bot.UrlEncode(strArticleName.Replace(" ","_"))+"&forcelinkupdate");SleepApiDelay();}
You don't need to check whether the page is a redirect or not. Just use action=purge&titles=list_of_pages&forcelinkupdate&redirect. The software should then resolve all redirects automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:University of Hyderabad Logo.jpg
I do not know how to delete this file, feel free to delete it an updated version of the file is already there on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranayrupani (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect General Purpose Interface. Since you had some involvement with the General Purpose Interface redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Virginia Tech Project Invite
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!
Thank you for having a bot that notified files that may be deleted. Well, that File:Bloonsoriginal.png file that B-Bot notified me helped me to find out that the Bloons article was vandalised. So thank you for helping me to stop vandalism! Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I had uploaded a file that was speedy deleted. (I had intended to request the deletion myself. I had gotten the licensing all wrong and I had replaced it with a better file anyway.) I got a tag from your bot to this effect on my talk page. I was wondering if it is permissible to delete tags like this from my talk page once the issue is resolved? I am learning now about licensing and how to document it properly, and I have collected a few tags on my talk page. I'd rather clear them out. In general, is that ok? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Dcs002: Yes, the notification from the bot is purely to assist you and prevent things from being deleted merely because nobody notices that there is something wrong with it. You are welcome to delete or archive it at any time you desire to. Something that some people find helpful is to have a bot automatically archive their talk page. For example, see User:MiszaBot/config for the one that I use. Everything older than two months on my talk page automatically gets archived by a bot - I don't have to spend any time doing it. --B (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and thank you for the suggestion. My talk page is not popular enough for me to need much archiving. I just archived 2009 - 2014(?) into one archive recently, and that's all. Maybe someday.Dcs002 (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Task Force 1-41 Infantry photos 2 and 6
The owners of the two photos which are included in my article have sent numerous emails regarding the copyright status of these particular photos. I have sent you two myself. I would really appreciate a explanation to what the problem is? Thanks.
@Don Brunett: In regards to File:TF1-41pows.jpg, the email that was received does not grant a statement of permission sufficient for Wikipedia. Wikipedia, unlike every other website on the planet, does not accept statements like "you may use my photos" or something similar - rather, we require a statement of license that permits anyone to reuse the image (so long as they comply with the terms of the license). Please ask the copyright holder to submit a statement similar to the one found at WP:CONSENT. In regards to File:TF1-41Battle of Norfolk.jpg, I have located ticket 2015112410002887 concerning this image. It has the same issue. --B (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You might want to check your email again because they both used that format the second time.Don Brunett (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett
@Don Brunett: I found where a follow-up email was received concerning File:TF1-41pows.jpg and have merged that reply into ticket 2015112010018351. This email contains the appropriate statement of permission and everything necessary is Done. For File:TF1-41Battle of Norfolk.jpg, no follow-up message has been received under ticket 2015112410002887. I have also searched for the sender's email address and name and cannot find any other messages from him under a different ticket number. Please ask him to resend his reply, making sure to include [Ticket#2015112410002887] in the subject line. When the ticket number is included in the subject line, the ticketing system will automatically link the reply with the original message. There is a huge backlog of messages (currently 0 days) and so if something comes in and doesn't have the ticket number in the subject line, it may be some time before it gets processed. --B (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
He told me he just resent.Don Brunett (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett
@Don Brunett: In regards to File:TF1-41Battle of Norfolk.jpg, I looked at ticket 2015112410002887 and no follow-up replies have been received. I repeated the search for the sender's name and could not find anything there either. Please note that there are other email addresses that things can be sent to that I don't have access to (like info-en). So I can't definitively say that nothing was sent - only that I can't find it. If you could ask him to send it again (and carbon copy you so that you can make sure it was sent to the right place), please make sure that [Ticket#2015112410002887] is in the subject line and that it is sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --B (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Overlook hotel 1.jpg
⚠
Hi B, recently your bot wrote on my talk page:
Thanks for uploading File:Overlook hotel 1.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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am actually no longer actively editing on Wikipedia. The file was deleted on grounds of "The photograph: fails NFCC#8". Given past experience in these matters, any arguments on my part would be wasted, so I won't bother. The decision has been made by Wik-admin to delete the image from the article per Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. Please delete the file without any further delay. Thank-you. Jason Palpatine (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Palpatine: the bot is simply serving notice that the image is not presently used in any article so that it can be replaced if its removal was accidental or was previously undetected vandalism. This notice is without judgment as to the appropriateness of the removal. The image will be automatically deleted when the timer expires. If you agree with the deletion, no further action is necessary. If you disagree with it, you can discuss it on the article talk page or with the person who removed it. (And not that it matters - admins have no special authority in such disputes - but the person who removed the image is not an admin.) --B (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This file is tagged as FFD, but your bot repeatedly has tagged it as orphaned. Will you prevent your bot from tagging ones with current FFD discussions? --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: The technical means exist for me to do that, but why should current FFD discussions be excluded from being deleted as an orphaned image? If there is a reason to summarily delete an image, then that should supersede a deletion discussion anyway. If you want to have a discussion about which of several non-free images to use, that discussion can be held by linking to the source website(s) where the image(s) can be found, rather than uploading both images here and leaving one orphaned. So I'm not saying no - but I think there should be a discussion at WT:FFD endorsing the change - I'm just having trouble envisioning a reason that we shouldn't delete a non-free image that remains orphaned. --B (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: Side note: even without me making a change to the bot, there is a way that you could forestall deletion without blocking it completely. You can edit the {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag to have a date some time further in the future, say, two weeks, or a month, e.g. {{di-orphaned fair use|date=20 January 2015}}. That way, as far as my bot is concerned, it is appropriately tagged for deletion, but it's not going to be deleted until after enough time for the debate to be resolved. --B (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Petty Theft Logo 2014.jpg
Hi, this image is being used in an article I am still working on. This image File:Petty Theft Logo 2014.jpg is linked to that article in my Sandbox (User:Ddab/sandbox) and it is showing under File Usage. Apologies if this isn’t the correct approach. Is it better I add the image as the final step before submitting? Ddab (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ddab: Non-free images are not permitted to be used in outside of article space - even in drafts of future articles. If you have an article draft in user space, the correct approach is to use a "placeholder" Put a different image in there, temporarily while you are developing the article. Then, once you are ready to promote the article into article space, replace it with the correct image. --B (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Doc James: When a page is moved, undeleted, or has vandalism reverted using rollback (in the case of Therapeutics Initiative it was moved), the Media Wiki software does not correctly update image links. My bot attempts to purge the image links using the article in the fair use rationale - so that if the image links are out of date, I will purge them. I did fix this some time ago to resolve redirects (at File:Logo of the Therapeutics Initiative.jpg, the link in the rationale is actually a redirect, not a direct link to the correct article), but it's not 100%. If this ever happens, any edit to the article will update the image links and cause my bot to not try to re-tag the image as an orphan. --B (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Perfect so for the not very technical among us that means the issue will not occur again? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: Well, it shouldn't have happened this time. But if the original problem (the bot tagging an in-use image) does happen again, the way it can be fixed and you can prevent my bot from "fighting" over the issue is to make an edit to the page where the image is in use. --B (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Image undeletion request
Hi. Back in March 2015, the image File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png was deleted by you as it was an unused non-free media file for more than 7 days. I am requesting that this image be undeleted as I am working through the secondary Australian TV channels and creating image gallery spaces of their past logos on their respective pages for historical/archival purposes (here is an example for 9Go!). I ask that this image please be undeleted so that it can be used for this purpose. Thanks. – Nick Mitchell 98talk 12:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nick Mitchell 98: I have restored File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png per your request and it is available to be added to an article. HOWEVER please note that galleries of non-free images are not appropriate - please see WP:NFG. Galleries of previous corporate logos have nearly always been deleted when brought up for discussions in our various deletion processes. Something like Logo of NBC where there is sourced discussion for each logo is probably acceptable, whereas a simple gallery with no sourced discussion about each image is likely unacceptable. (If the image is not re-added to an article in one week, no further action is necessary - it will be automatically re-deleted.) --B (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@B: Thank you for your help. I will investigate further into this issue to better understand it. – Nick Mitchell 98talk 01:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Flags of political parties
There was a syntax error in {{Infobox political party}}, so lots of flags for political parties were missing from their respective articles. I discovered this when your bot started filling up Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 10 January 2016 with flag images on my watchlist and reverted the template so that the files now are in use again. Will your bot remove the F5 tags automatically in one week (and purge articles if necessary), or is it necessary to do something manually to clean this up? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: It .should. do it automatically as long as the fair use rationale points to the right article. I have seen times where it is not perfect on updating the image links, but it is supposed to be purging the article in the rationale (resolving any redirects) and updating the image links. Have you already manually reverted the orfud tags? I notice that File:Lipa City Flag 2016.jpg and File:Lipa City Flag.jpg.gif seem to legitimately be orphans and there are very few flags in the category ... so I'm assuming you already took care of it manually? I could possibly set it to do the same purge and removal at 2 and 4 days, so that way you don't have to wait until the night before deletion to find out whether or not I'll be able to detect that the image is in use again. --B (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I have not removed any orfud tags, but it is possible that someone else did. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Request for extension for File:Sonasoft-logo.png
Hi B-Bot,
Thanks for the heads up that the Sonasoft logo, File:Sonasoft-logo.png., is scheduled to be deleted on February 16, 2016.
I was wondering if I could receive a two-week extension; that is until March 1, 2016?
Reason is that I hope to finish and resubmit the draft for the Sonasoft page by then. Draft:Sonasoft
″@Ddab: Non-free images are not permitted to be used in outside of article space - even in drafts of future articles. If you have an article draft in user space, the correct approach is to use a "placeholder" Put a different image in there, temporarily while you are developing the article. Then, once you are ready to promote the article into article space, replace it with the correct image. --B (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)″
So, should I remove the image portion of Sonasoft-logo File:Sonasoft-logo.png and replace it with some generic placeholder image has the same dimensions?
@Emailarchiving.enthusiast: In this particular case, the image in question - File:Sonasoft-logo.png - is not subject to copyright protection because it does not pass the threshold of originality. I have removed the fair use tag and you may re-add the image to your draft at any time you desire. To answer your question in general terms, B-bot actually treats drafts as an "in between" case. It does not remove the image from the draft nor does it tag the image as orphaned, but it does note the image in its log file so that a human can review it. In this particular case, the image was removed from this article by Finnusertop (talk·contribs), after which B-bot tagged it as orphaned. Images used under a claim of fair use are not permitted in drafts and are subject to summary removal at any time by any user who desires to do so. (Some users choose not to remove images from drafts that are actively being worked or awaiting review, but there is no requirement that they do so.) The preferred procedure is that you use some sort of placeholder in place of the logo until the moment that the article is ready to go live. Five minutes before making the article live, you can replace the placeholder with the real image. In this particular case, because the image is not subject to copyright protection, this process is not necessary, but for future reference, please use a placeholder for any fair use image while developing a draft. (You could just pick any public domain or other free photo to use in place of the non-free one.) --B (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! B-bot / Finnusertop. This is my first Wikipedia article (although I noted that there have been other contributions with the same IP address, but truly this is my first one.) So, I'm learning a lot.
To clarify, when the article goes live, all I have to do is add/revert the current file code where the logo should be.
| logo = //Image:NonFreeImageRemoved|320px|sonasoft\\
and revert back to:
| logo = //Image:sonasoft-logo.png|320px|sonasoft\\ (note: I will change / to [ and \ to ] in the actual production )
Is that all? Elementary.
Should I change any of the information in the logo file itself? File:Sonasoft-logo.png It seems that you changed that already and that this is the correct information to display for a logo.
I shamelessly modeled other accepted Wikipedia articles as a 'how to' guide. But, this makes more sense than those.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I do not see a reply, then I will assume that this is correct.
Once again, thanks for coming up with a solution that works and still adheres to Wikipedia's standards.
Yes, as a general rule what you said is correct. Except that in this particular case, the image was incorrectly tagged as non-free, so I have re-added it to the article and no further action is necessary - the image is perfectly fine to use in any article or draft as it is. --B (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This was, in part, my bad. My apologies, B. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 5
Greetings, noting here that I've tagged a file (redirect) you made for deletion in the "Placeholder images for overly generic file titles that shadow placeholder images on Commons part 2" section. Regards, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Drink.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Drink.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello B-
I received 2 deletion messages today:
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Edward Lehman and Dick Cormack of DMACK and DMACK Holdings LTD.jpg
and
Orphaned non-free image File:E Lehman &a D Cormack of DMACK-DMACK Holdings Ltd.jpg
Situation is as follows: the first item, speedy deletion, is the first version of this photo I posted and I posted it as nonfree use.
Subsequently I received permission and re-uploaded the image with a free use tag.
Both files are in danger of deletion. I am requesting that you go ahead and delete the: Orphaned non-free image File:E Lehman &a D Cormack of DMACK-DMACK Holdings Ltd.jpg
But please keep the free image in the article.
I am very new to this and I appreciate any assistance you can give me.
Hi there, back in 2013 you deleted an article here [7]. Would you mind userfying it for me? You can put it in my existing sandbox. The subject actually seems to be notable. I'm working on sourcing but I'd like to see what was written previously. Thanks much. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@The Master: I'm sorry, but this article was created by a banned user in defiance of his ban and is not eligible for restoration - to do so would encourage that behavior. (Obviously, if you believe the topic is notable, you are welcome to create an article on that topic. But the existing one cannot be restored.) --B (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand your concern... I don't want to restore the deleted article, I just want to see what they wrote and what sources they used. I'm 100% writing my own article. Actually, strike that. Probably not necessary and I don't want to press you to do something you're uncomfortable with. Thank you in any case! The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Logo speedy deletion
Hi, I understand the speedy deletion policy for our orphaned fair use logo is that the image is to be deleted after 7 days if it is not present in any article. However the article to include the logo is currently a draft at an advanced stage in my user page. Can an exception be made for this image, since I uploaded it for an upcoming article? Thanks --Br wind (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-free images are not permitted to be used in outside of article space - even in drafts of future articles. If you have an article draft in user space, the correct approach is to use a "placeholder" Put a different image in there, temporarily while you are developing the article. Then, once you are ready to promote the article into article space, replace it with the correct image.
@Stefan2: I actually came here to report the same thing - the underlying query hasn't run for four days. (quarry:query/3268, though I'm sure you'd already found it; if not, though, I've already executing a fork, and I'll start tagging those manually as a stopgap.) —Cryptic 06:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Cryptic, I have tagged the remaining files. I hope that the bot resumes its task soon, though. It takes a lot of time to tag files manually, and the bot is able to check a few extra things such as ensuring that uploaders get a few hours to add recently uploaded files to articles before they are tagged. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. There's maybe value in per-task shutoff switches, but if a bot's gone genuinely berserk, it's not like there's going to be a lack of admins willing to block it. —Cryptic 04:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Good that you found that switch, Cryptic! Looking at the bot's contributions, it seems to have resumed its tasks. The bot doesn't seem to regenerate its query, but appears to get a database report from Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files once per day. Different query (seems to exclude files with redirects and files used in non-articles), but it's better than nothing. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Most tasks seem to be running ok, but Orphaned Non-free Image Tagger's still broken, with a blank error message ("ERROR - @B: Error updating list of orphaned images: --B-bot (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)"). —Cryptic 05:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Cryptic, the bot seems to update the pages User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-0, User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-1 & User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-2, so I assume that the bot is working, but I think that the bot was designed to only tag files which have been orphaned for at least 48 hours to give uploaders some time to add recently uploaded files to pages and to give users some time to revert obvious mistakes in articles before the files are tagged. You recently tagged all files, so you need to wait for a few days until there are files which have been orphaned for a sufficiently long time before the bot finds anything to tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2 and Cryptic: Ideally, it would be 24 hours (and change), not 48 hours, if all is working correctly. The bot runs twice per day, so it would hit the /day-2 list on the next run after 24 full hours have passed. But ... I'm using a query on Quarry to populate the list of orphaned docs and it looks like that query hasn't been run successfully in three weeks. I can test it and see if maybe they have changed something in their interface so that I'm not successfully connecting any more. From my error log, it looks like it's immediately failing to query it (as opposed to simply not running quickly enough), so that to me says they probably changed something. So my backup is to use Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files, which is only updated once per day, meaning it takes 48 full hours. Also, it's worth noting that I get a boatload of timeout errors (at least 2-3 per day). I seriously doubt it's my connection - I have a great connection, both up and down. I'm assuming that it's either that I'm being throttled by Wikipedia or just that the Wikipedia servers are overburdened and they put API traffic as the lowest priority. --B (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
(←) Okay, it looks like they changed something on their site ... when I try to update the Quarry data, I'm getting "The remote server returned an error: (405) Method Not Allowed.". Looking into it ... --B (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Simple problem actually, they apparently have stopped allowing http queries as of, well, three weeks ago. I am changing it to use https and it will hopefully work correctly from now on. --B (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
B, looking at User:B-bot/Event log#Orphaned Non-free Image Tagger - 01:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC), it looks as if the bot only allows 20 minutes for the query to generate. Quarry's time limit was changed from 20 to 30 minutes some time ago, so you might wish to ask your bot to wait for 30 minutes if the query sometimes is too slow.
Where does the timeout error occur, on Wikipedia or on Quarry? If it is on Wikipedia, then it is perhaps related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 146#Annoying "Secure connection failed". I occasionally get that problem (once or twice per day or something). Always when making a post request (save page, show preview or show changes), I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2:screenshot showing timestamps of errorsI can update the time to 30 minutes. The timeout is on Wikipedia - it's extremely rare when I see a timeout on Quarry. I included a screenshot showing the timestamps of the errors. The "Error in B-bot" errors are nearly always timeouts and the "Error connecting to https://en.wikipedia.org" errors are always that it can't establish a connection to Wikipedia to begin with. (Occasionally, the error is that the wiki is in read-only mode or one of those meaning there is actual server trouble.) If the problem were more severe, I could log the failures and try them again at the end of the run or the next day or something like that, but when I'm editing 200 pages per day and have probably an overall average of a 1% failure rate, it just hasn't seemed worth it - most of the tagging will happen the next day anyway. The only problem would be, I suppose, if I fail to send the notification, then that never gets sent. (If I fail to tag the image to begin with, it's already smart enough to not send the notification.) --B (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I just glanced at the message above, and wonder if some tweaking is in progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Sphilbrick, the article uses an SVG file which is almost identical to the PNG file you mentioned. The PNG file is not used in Western Power (networks corporation). --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That raises other issues - I'll respond on your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove autopatrolled right from B-bot
Creations by bots are already autopatrolled without any need for this explicit right. Can you please remove the redundant autopatrolled right from B-bot? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@GeoffreyT2000: Can you link me to the documentation of that somewhere? I guess it doesn't matter that much anyway since it doesn't create pages very often (mostly just if someone being warned of a pending image deletion doesn't have a talk page already). I don't doubt you, but I'm looking for the documentation that it's implicit for bots and I can't find it. --B (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have removed it. --B (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thomas CGI
Why don't you upload CGI Thomas photos because I don't edit much on this wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefeky (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Keefeky: I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. --B (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@PraeceptorIP: Please see WP:NFCC#8. Non-free images are only permitted where their inclusion would significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic and their exclusion is detrimental to that understanding. Does seeing a logo increase your understanding of a court case? --B (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
A year ago ...
"grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith"
... you were recipient no. 1255 of Precious, a prize of QAI!
Hi B,
i see u control a bot. If posiible can u programme a bot for me since i dont know programmming. The bot can inform uploaders that their data needs citation
Please I'd be very grateful if u help me
thanks and Regards
--VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@VarunFEB2003: Unfortunately, I don't presently have time for such a project. You can float your idea at Wikipedia:Bot requests, though. You may want to provide more clarity about what exactly you are looking for. (All uploaders? Uploaders who upload a chart? Something that is triggered if a {{fact}} tag is added to an image description page?) --B (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@B: B first of all thanks for ur reply. second, nobody is able to much help me. I'd be really grateful if u can create a bot THAT DOES ANY FUNCTION. Any function bot will do. Pls B Help me out. Take AS MUCH TIME AS U NEED but pls create the bot for me. Thanks and Regards. please help me, I shall wait for ur reply.
I'm sorry VarunFEB2003, but "any function" doesn't really tell me what you want it to do. It would be like going to Wal Mart and saying "just buy anything". Do you want a steak, a shirt, or a power drill? They all serve completely different purposes. --B (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This came up at the BRFA and my suggestion there was, rather than blocking the bot from editing the page, to "kick the can down the road" by setting the orfud timer to one month. I think, though am not 100% sure, that if you used {{nobots}} on there, I would obey that — the SDK that I use has that built into it and I've never felt compelled to change it. On user talk pages, I wrote a nice function to parse all of the different incarnations of the bots and nobots flags, but I don't use that on image description pages - my thinking at the time was that if something is an orphaned fair use image, it should be deleted and I didn't want someone blocking the bot in order to keep their walled garden of copyrighted images. (I'm open to changing that — my view at the time of the BRFA was that the benefits of preventing copyrighted images from sitting there forever outweighted the downside of tagging something in the midst of a discussion, when the latter problem can be resolved by editing the date on the tag to be well in the future.) In this particular case, there is no question whatsoever that these images are not subject to copyright protection and my suggestion would be to simply remove the tags and re-tag them as PD-ineligible — an IFD seems like overkill. Had I encountered these images on my own, I would have just re-tagged them and moved on with life. --B (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I was being a bit too prudent, maybe. Anyhow, FFD nominations don't stick around forever, maybe it could ignore files currently tagged at FFD? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm ... that's definitely a thought - I could just ignore anything with an FFD tag or log it for manual review. --B (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yoshifan has been making numerous requests at WP:REFUND, e.g. 1, 2, but admins there have been reluctant to restore screenshots for him until he answers our requests to provide a valid FUR, in particular how they will be used so as to meet WP:NFCCP#8. JohnCD (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you please undeleted these three images? I've requested them for undeletion, I want to work on them. Thanks. YoshiFan155 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi B. I see you've undeleted these screenshots. Unfortunately, while adding them to an article may satisfy WP:NFCC#7, the decorative way they are being used in that particular article still seems problematic per WP:NFCC#8 and also possibly WP:NFCC#3. I'm not sure if it's acceptable to tag an undeleted image via an undeletion request with Template:di-disputed fair use rationale for speedy deletion or whether it should be discussed at WP:FFD instead, so please advise on which of the two is more appropriate in this particular case. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: The images in question were deleted solely because they were unused and so they are subject to restoration on demand without prejudice (subject to being used in an article in a way that complies with the NFCC). If there is another reason to delete them, then please feel free to tag or nominate them, as appropriate. --B (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you B for clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sam: Media files that are linked using the {{audio}} template are not considered by the bot to be "in use". I clicked on a few pages arbitrarily from Category:Wikipedia non-free audio samples and all of them had actual inline links using the {{Listen}} template, e.g. look over to the right at Rodeo_(ballet)#Structure_and_analysis. So if it is desired, I could certainly make my bot treat audio files linked using {{audio}} count as "in use", but I think normally if the file is only hotlinked, it's not considered to be used - it has to be embedded in the page to be considered to be used. --B (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm an admin and I didn't understand what was going on and how to fix it, so it seems that something needs to change to make this easier to deal with for the casual (and experienced) editor. The {{audio}} template says that it doesn't count as embedded usage in a page, but the file sure looks like it is embedded on the page. Perhaps your bot can advise people to change {{audio}} templates to {{Listen}} templates? I think the {{audio}} template should be considered usage, and there should be a different way to just reference an audio file. The nice thing about the {{audio}} template is that it is small. But it does add both a link to play the music (which makes me think it is embedded) and a link to the file, which is just a reference. Strangely, the icon is the reference which seems backwards to me. I think the little speaker should just play the music and a link to the file should appear when the controls come up. For now, I'll just switch the usage on Bangkok to the {{Listen}} template
Help
Hi B, I need help with a silly thing as non-1st English speaker; I'm translating a template now, and I'm having trouble understanding the difference between a Leading Actress and a feature actress. Is there a difference? Like Major character and supporting character?AngusGuilherme¶ 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Angus Guilherme: I'm sorry, but I have no idea. You may be able to get help at a relevant wikiproject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre or at WP:HELPDESK. --B (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Riccardo Silva Alessandro Nesta & Ronaldo at Miami FC.jpg
I'm sorry to be a pain, I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet. Would the following permission be suitable to get the image in question re-uploaded?;
"I represent Silva International Investments who own Miami FC (http://silvainternational.com/company/miami-fc/). It was a member of Miami FC’s photography team that took the photo of both Riccardo Silva (Portrait) and File:Riccardo Silva Alessandro Nesta & Ronaldo at Miami FC.jpg.
Miami FC have given us permission to use it and appear on Riccardo Silva’s wikipedia page.
Please re-instate it as soon as possible.
Tony Pilch
Silva International Investments"
I've sent email threads to permissions but understand there can be a delay. If you could clarify the most explicit permission I need to get for this, that would be great.
Thanks Hoolietta (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, B. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Bot request
Hey B,
Thanks for making and maintaining B-Bot. Could you respect the {{bots|optout=ifd}} tag on my talk page? Thanks. --Tim1357talk|poke 14:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tim1357: B-bot is not sending an ifd notification - it is sending an orfud notification. If you use {{bots|optout=orfud}}, that should work. --B (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi B.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Good evening @Super ninja2: actually, it looks like the bot ran correctly. The very similar looking File:Get_Blake!_logo.png is, as of right now, used in that article. File:Get blake logo SH.png is orphaned. Really, it should be the other way around since our rule is to use web-resolution versions of non-free images, not high-res versions. But as of now, the bot correctly marked the SH version as orphaned. --B (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
eta: I have changed the article to use the web-resolution version. --B (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
I was really hoping you would respond to this in a timely manner. It's now almost the start of February and I'm worried that you haven't made the change to your bot as requested and that it's going to create the categories for March as soon as February rolls around like it did last time, continuing to unnecessarily clutter up cleanup reports. You have made edits since I left this message so I have to assume at this point you're simply ignoring my request. Please respond to this acknowledging that your bot will no longer be creating these categories so far in advance (and ideally only once it becomes populated - Category:Wikipedia pages with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS as of January 2017 has remained empty the entire month), or I will be forced to consider you to have run afoul of Wikipedia:Bot policy#Good communication and escalate the matter. VegaDark (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Good grief. This is done, but you need to take it down about 5 notches. --B (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned PDFs
Dear Bot: This is LexLife . I'm relatively new at editing Wikipedia, but spent quite a bit of time editing Beaverbrook Art Gallery yesterday. That included uploading two PDFs of public-domain legal documents (File:Beaverbrook Art Gallery Dispute—Arbitral Award (2007.03.20).pdf and File:Beaverbrook Art Gallery Dispute—Appeal Decision (2009.08.27).pdf and then referencing them in the article (see notes 16 and 17). I just got your automated message that these files are orphaned and are now marked for deletion, so it must be that I haven't referenced them properly. They are meant to be files to link to, not images within the article. If you want to point me to a tutorial to fix this, that would be alright, though I already attempted to do what I thought the tutorial was telling me to do.
LexLife (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@LexLife: - there generally is not a need to store files at Wikipedia unless you're embedding it in the article. If the article should link to these documents, then we should link to them wherever they are hosted. --B (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Illustration to article Alfred Gordon Clark/Cyril Hare
<<B-bot left a message on your talk page in "Orphaned non-free image File:AAGC late 40s.jpg".>>
I am the son of the late "Cyril Hare" and what I am trying to do is to replace the photograph of my father which currently illustrates the article - an image made I think from an old Penguin paper back - with a better image of the same photograph, taken from an original print. The photograph was taken in 1946 or 1947, not the 1950s as currently stated, and was taken by a photographer called Austin Youell, of Leatherhead, Surrey. He might as well be credited, and although technically the photograph may still be in copyright, probably under the 70 year rule until this year or last year, it was used so extensively by Penguins that I consider it must be fair game to use it now.
Charles Gordon Clark, Bromyard, HerefordshireChipgc (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Chipgc: Mr. Clark, if you make a request at WP:MCQ, they can help you out with image copyright issues. The short version is that Wikipedia is going to want a copyright release from the copyright holder. --B (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Bot error
Hi, Bot-B incorrecly tagged File:A Sort of Homecoming (film) 2015 poster.jpeg as an orphaned image, so I reverted it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: Thank you for reporting this bug. There is an issue with the engine that I am using to pull the list of orphans - there are hoards of false positives on the list. You can see that it shows up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files, even though it very clearly is not orphaned. So what I do is I purge and refresh the image links before tagging an image as an orphan, which should prevent me from tagging any of these numerous false positives. I think I have an explanation as to why this didn't work correctly - it looks like Wikipedia was having troubles at the time that the bot was running. (It logged a server error in my event log.) So probably I failed to purge and refresh the image links, which caused it to think that the image actually was still an orphan. I will modify it so that if we fail to refresh the image links, it will skip the file. --B (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and sorting it out Atlantic306 (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The use of API action=purge via GET has been deprecated since September 2016. I plan to remove the ability to use GET in February 2017. Please update your bot to use a POST so it may continue to work. Thanks. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@BJorsch (WMF): Noted. I am currently out of town traveling, but will do this next week. --B (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@BJorsch (WMF): I apologize for not getting back to you sooner - I looked and everything seems to be doing POSTs. Are you sending this message generically to everyone or only to people who are showing up in server logs as doing gets. If the latter, could you please give me an example from the log of a get? I'm using the C# SDK so things are encapsulated a bit, but it looks like every WebRequest has a Method of "POST". --B (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It was specific to people who were showing up in the logs, and I see B-bot is still showing up. An example from the log I'm looking at is "purge-via-GET" "B-bot" "XXX.XX.XX.XXX" "" "DotNetWikiBot/3.14 (Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0; .NET CLR 4.0.30319.42000)", at 2017-02-08T23:10:02Z with a request for /w/api.php?action=purge&titles=Zee_Africa&forcelinkupdate. I see 327 similar hits in the past 24 hours.
If nothing else, it'll probably start giving you errors once 1.29.0-wmf.11 is deployed here in 16 or so hours. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@BJorsch (WMF): Okay, thanks, I must have missed that one. I'll fix it tonight when I get home. --B (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@BJorsch (WMF): This should be fixed now. --B (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion. The issue 9 years ago was that it was vandalized and nobody noticed it for months. If someone would like to remove it, they are welcome to do so. --B (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded Image Not In Use
Hey there,
Got a message from you saying that an image I uploaded is not in use:
"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."
It's being used as the logo here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FXCM - I've checked the file names for the image you referenced and the one used on this page and they're definitely the same. I think flagging this image may have been done in error.
Lenticularphoto
@Lenticularphoto: At the time that the image was tagged, it had been removed from the article. Please see [8] for the old revision. Once the image was re-added, B-bot removed the orphan tag automatically. Unfortunately, being a bot, B-bot can't make judgments about whether the reason for removing an image from an article is a good one - it only knows that it is removed. But it is always re-checking to see if the image has been re-added so that things don't get accidentally deleted. --B (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I gave a rationale for File:Arnaud Chanel 1958.jpg but just in case I've added to it. Under the heading Summary. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ericoides: As an FYI, File:Arnaud Chanel 1958.jpg was tagged by User:B-bot because at the time it was tagged, it was not used in an article. The reason that the image was not used in an article is that User:JJMC89 bot (not B-bot) had removed the image from the article. Unfortunately, B-bot can't really judge whether the reason for removing the image was a good one or not - it just tags images that are orphaned and remain orphaned for a day or more. --B (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks for letting me know. Ericoides (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you please remove tag from an uploaded image that is now being used in the article it was intended for.
I have created the infobox for the article LeMans (video game), this means that the image I uploaded is now being used for the only article it was to be used for. Can you please remove the automated tagging. Graham1973 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Graham1973: Done, but FYI for future reference, you are always welcome to remove that tag yourself if you would like. Any of the image deletion tags like {{subst:orfud}}, {{subst:npd}}, {{subst:nrd}}, etc, can be removed by anyone once the problem is fixed. If an image is tagged as not being used and you add it to an article, by all means please remove the tag. --B (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Gnangarra, the problem was that JJMC89 bot (talk·contribs) removed the image from the article.[9] When B-bot (talk·contribs) tagged the image as orphaned, it was, in fact, orphaned. --B (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Please note that I've added a help=off parameter to all the DI tags, similar to how the CSD and PROD tags have them. Can B-Bot be updated to include that in its tags? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: I'm not clear, what text are you asking that the bot put into that tag? The tag is in this format:
{{Di-orphaned fair use|date=27 July 2017}}
Are you asking for something like this?
{{Di-orphaned fair use|date=27 July 2017|help=Put something here}}
Since the bot notifies users (unless the user specifically disabled notifications), there is no need to show the blurb on how to notify users. Thus, I am asking for {{Di-orphaned fair use|date=27 July 2017|help=off}}. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded Image Not In Use
Hi,
I received a message stating that this File:Peter Levy Tweet 29-10-11.jpg is not being used within any articles. I appreciate that it may be unconventional, however I have actually referenced the image in question on the following page as I felt that it would be inappropriate the post the image itself to the page. The image has been suitably referenced and there are possible extenuating circumstances as to why I have not posted the image onto the page itself. Please take these into account. --Zoyetu (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi Zoyetu. The file you're discussing is a non-free image and non-free images can only be used (i.e., displayed) in the article namespace per non-free content use crtierion #9. So, I have tweaked the file's syntax and coverted it to a link using the "colon trick" and removed the pipe since it's no longer needed. As for the file not being used in any articles, unfortunately non-free content criteria #7 requires that a non-free file be used in at least one article and those which are not will be deleted per WP:F5. There are really no exceptions to this, so if you feel the file is not appropriate for use in an article, it will be deleted. Removing the tag is not going to stop it from being re-tagged by a human reviewer or a bot as long as the file is not being used in any articles. If you want to preserve the file for some reason, you should consider downloading and storing it off Wikipedia. If you want to cite the tweet post as source for article content, you don't need to use a non-free image to do that. In fact, you shouldn't use a non-free image for that. Instead, you should simply cite it like any other source as long as it is not a problem per WP:BLPSELFPUB. You can use Template:Cite web for the citation formating if you like. If the file can no longer be found online or there is no convinience link which can be used, then perhaps there is a story which can be cited which discusses the tweet and its removal like this one about another person who also deleted a similar tweet about Savile -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Dear Bot: This is PoqVaUSA. My situation is similar to LexLife above. I uploaded two screen images from Star Trek Fan movies specifically to document the name of the Starship and the NCC number associated with that name, for the two Fan series: Starship Exeter and Starship Farragut. I don't think it is worth including those images directly in the Wiki article, but I don't want to post an assignment of NCC number for a web series without having some documentation for that claim. The article is: "Star Trek fan productions". The two images are: USS-Exeter-NCC-1706.png and USS-Farragut-NCC-1647.png. The article only makes reference to the images and does not display them. Is that a legitimate use, or are the only options to either display the images in the article or delete the images from the Wikipedia Commons? I am not aware of any other images already in the Commons that would serve the purpose, and I'm not really sure how to search for such images either. The original source is a video rather than an image, so unless a person goes to the specific frame in the video, the documentation aspect is lost.
PoqVaUSA (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello
I also got messages on three photos that were removed from my article, and are now considered "orphaned" I have full permission from the artist to use the photos, some of them were taken by me, and I have credited them. I am not sure what more I am supposed to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Williams_(artist)
File:Scott Williams VW.jpg".
File:Scott Williams stencil.jpg. "
File:Scott Williams SFAI.jpg.
I had a similar problem with
File:Kiss Revolution series by Fred Rinne.jpg.
File:New Wave Hobo by Fred Rinne.jpg
Cleshne (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page about an image that supposedly is not in use, but I have just checked and it still is. Would you look into this please and let me know what's going on? Tim riley talk 17:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tim riley: There are no references to File:Private lives.jpg because a blown up version of it File:Private-Lives-1931-1b.jpg is in use. The image, according to the information on Commons, is public domain. So the smaller version isn't really needed and someone replaced it with the larger one. (There is nothing that needs to be done - an admin will delete the smaller one once the timer expires and the larger one will continue to work.) --B (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the explanation. Tim riley talk 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Bot bug
Your bot left a message on my talk page claiming that I uploaded File:The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.png which I have absolutely no connection with that I can tell. I’m certainly not the uploader. — Timwi (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Timwi: In the history of the image, it looks like the oldest surviving edit is from you. In 2004, you converted an image someone else had uploaded to png. Subsequently, in 2009, another image reduced the image in size to comply with WP:FAIR's size restrictions and your 2004 upload was deleted. (I don't see it in the deleted revisions, nor does it show up as a "hidden" revision, but there have previously been problems with deleted revisions of older images not showing up or not being kept.) But anyway, the reason you got the notification is that in 2004, you uploaded this image and your edit is the oldest one in history. --B (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, B. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello (again?). Your B-bot notifies uploaders who have been inactive for years, like this blocked user and this editor who has been inactive since 2009. I wonder whether notifying those users is necessary. If so, how do we know whether they will return? George Ho (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: I could see it both ways. I guess that my thought is that the potential harm of adding one more notification to a blocked user whose talk page is probably filled with notifications is rather minimal and it would be better to err on the side of notifying rather than not notifying. --B (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I was wondering if you would be able to undelete this image. I am working on an article I should have finished up soon and I worked hard to properly upload this image so that I could use it on that article. Please respond ASAP, as I would not like to go through the hassle of redoing all of the work i did in uploading it. I will be done with the article soon.
TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@TheGreatClockwyrm: When you are done with the article and it is ready to be published, you can make a request at WP:REFUND and it will be undeleted. --B (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please support the existence of Portals in the discussion
Please support the existence of Portals in the discussion on the village pump.--Broter (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you remove protection from these three pages? They're semi-protected and fully move-protected. Super Mario Guy (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Super Mario Guy: You should make that request of the admin who protected the page, or, if they are unavailable, then at WP:RFPP. --B (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hatim Tai
Respected, B, The image Hatim Tai (1990 film).jpg is kept back in its original webpage. Now it is not orphaned. Regards (B.Bhargava Teja (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC))
Tim Pawlenty
You protected Tim Pawlenty in 2012, and I don't think that's needed any more. 174.197.17.44 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@174.197.17.44: Just as a point of clarification, I didn't protect it - I downgraded its protection from full to semi. I don't have any opinion on the protection being removed - please feel free to make a request at WP:RFPP. --B (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Didn't know we had that for files now. --B (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
No worries. You can find PROD via Twinkle. George Ho (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 21:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@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)
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! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 00:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@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)
File:St Bartholomew's Church, Burnley 1885.jpg - clearly public domain (photos taken in Australia prior to 1946 are PD both in the US and Australia). I have removed the fair use rationale.
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)
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)
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: 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)
Thank you! I am chasing up my brother-in-law to make sure this is done.
Johnnydogmatic (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
@Stefan2: I found the end of the alphabet at [10]. 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)
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)
I think you may want to ask the WMF Legal folks about this. It's rather unlikely that even in legal documents about copyright for any purpose would not include Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other uses are permitted.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the problem is the viral aspect of the license. I can give YOU the right to use my copyrighted work "for any purpose" but that does not inherently give you the right to SUBLICENSE those rights. "You can borrow my car for any purpose". Maybe that even includes lending it to your friend to drive. But it certainly doesn't include authorizing your friend to loan it out to their friends, who can then lend it to their own friends. --B (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know of any dictionary definition of "any purpose" that entails "but not for this one". So yes, ask the WMF lawyers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
No problem - I understand. --B (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
@Moriori: it's a pro forma notification required when an image is tagged for deletion, not something we necessarily expect a reply to. The notification allows Swifty (or anyone else who would like to) an opportunity to contact the copyright holder and request that the images be licensed under an acceptable license. --B (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course. Don't know what I was thinking. Moriori (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ShakespeareFan00: Actually, images with no source have been subject to summary deletion since September 17, 2005[11]. 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)
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)
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)
@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)
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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
@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)
@Ssredg: I think this is in reference to WP:Files for discussion/2018_September_8#File:OMA_airport_logo2.png and you mean flyoma.com. Yes, articles should use official logos and the most recent logo, not a made-up or older logo. If there are multiple potential official logos that we could use, then we can certainly prefer a non-copyrighted one. But we shouldn't make up a logo. --B (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
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.jpgColdNorthWind2 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)ColdNorthWind2
@ColdNorthWind2: The message was automatically sent by a bot because the image is no longer in use. No action is required on your part. Because it is no longer in use, the large image will be deleted within a few days and the message is just giving notice of that pending deletion. (Again, no action is required. You have replaced the image and so the unused one can be deleted.) In this particular case, you yourself removed the image from the article, so it isn't telling you anything especially interesting, but a lot of times, images are accidentally removed or they are removed as a result of vandalism, so the notifications ensure that images aren't deleted when they are still desired. --B (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
Fixed --B (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&format=xml&iiprop=timestamp%7Carchivename&iilimit=3&titles=File%3ABishop's%20Stortford%20FC.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&format=xml&iiprop=timestamp%7Carchivename&iilimit=3&titles=File%3ASprint%20Nextel%20logo.svg){kind=link}
_gameplay.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:RedSwastikaSchool.jpg){kind=link}
_sample_frame.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_the_Therapeutics_Initiative.jpg){kind=link}
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. VegaDark (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Portalwarning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
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)
_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
