User talk:B: Difference between revisions

David F. Hickey

This may or may not be a dupe of what I tried to send otherwise. As I tried to explain, I may have left out necessary specs or appealed to the wrong release, but the photo you deleted is clearly stated as for free use on the following page http://catholic.bz/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=86 Please enable so that I can reinsert this image and tell me what I must do to respond to the issue you find here. I'm certain this photo is meant to be in the public domain and can get further permissions if you tell me what more you require. Gratefully jzsj 05:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

• @Jzsj: I deleted the photo because it is also on Commons and there is no need to have the same debate two different places. The concern I have - and please see my question for you at Commons:User_talk:Jzsj - is whether or not we can accept this statement of license at face value. Since all of the images are on Commons, can we hold this discussion there? --B (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you check the permission given on the web page http://catholic.bz/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=86  ? I hate to keep bothering the Bishop on this unless absolutely necessary and they thought that the note and symbol placed on the web page would be quite sufficient. But if you can't accept that as sufficient then please get back to me and I'll send him the form to fill out. Thanks. jzsj 11:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)
    • @Jzsj: Again, I left you a detailed note at Commons:User_talk:Jzsj. The point that needs to be clarified is that this is NOT a statement of permission. A statement of permission needs to have three components:
      1. Identifying what image we're talking about
      2. A clear statement of copyright ownership
      3. A clear statement of license

      We're good on point #1, but points #2 and #3 are not there. When I read "This work ... by unknown ... is free of known copyright restrictions", what does that mean? Does that mean (a) the diocese owns the copyright to all of these photos and we release them into the public domain, (b) we did a thorough copyright search and have determined that the copyright has expired on all of these photos, or (c) we found these pictures somewhere and have no idea if they are copyrighted, but we don't know about any copyright restrictions?

      For each of these images (or maybe for all of them collectively), we need some information about the provenance. Where is the image from? Did an official photographer who is an employee of the diocese take the photo? We just need some explanation. --B (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll send this to the Bishop's representative who maintains the Diocesan website where the pictures appear. Please allow a week or so for a response. Thanks, jzsj 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

BMNH

Hi B~

Thanks for your help with appropriate tagging for the pics in this article and for having the insight to argue against article deletion, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@DRosenbach: The permission submitted for the images is not sufficient. If you have not already done so, please contact the copyright holder and ask him to use the form at WP:CONSENT. --B (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have and he will. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

About an article written to defame

Hello User B, I'm writing in respect to this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi" It was purely written to defame the subject. Court cases and issues of arrest were discussed in the article.The reference sources quoted are not real. The subject or person written about is in deep sorrow. An enemy is using wikipedia to defame and get back at him. When has wikipedia become a ground for defaming others? I though the rule is focused on neutrality. I've tried to nominate the article for speedy deletion but another user removed the tag. I want you to read through the article and judge whether it's right to allow it be on wikipedia. Thanks a lot Rose Rosemaryujoh (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rosemaryujoh: I am not quite sure which references you are saying are not real. There is one dead link claimed as a reference, but the rest look legitimate. The article does not appear to be subject to speedy deletion criterion G10 as an attach piece. If you would like to nominate it for deletion, please see WP:AFD for instructions on how to do so. --B (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, she succeeded in getting the article blanked and redirected by going to BLPN. Persistence by those with a COI will do Wikipedia in eventually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are the lines that appears to defame

Thanks dear, but check this lines in the article... They are defamatory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi

Allegation in Al-Abbas Sugar Mills Limited

A suit has been filed in Sindh High Court against chief executive officer, Shunaid Qureshi, for his alleged involvement in the activities including diversion of money belonging to his company. Sindh High Court issued notices to Al-Abbas Sugar Mills Limited, its Chief Executive Officer and others on lawsuit regarding misappropriation of company bonus and alleged illegal transfers of funds.[4][5] Brawling in JSCL Meeting

In January 2014, charges were filed against Qureshi regarding an alleged violent assault at a shareholder meeting of Al-Abbas Sugar Mills.[6][7][8] Naya Nazimabad Controversy Main article: Naya Nazimabad

Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[9][10]

Thanks Rose Rosemaryujoh (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The man "Shunaid Quresh" is being defamed. Someone create the page to bring shame to him.. I guess, the article is not neutral in this case. Do we use wikipedia to defame someone else?

1. Do not refer to me as "dear". It is insulting and inappropriate.
2. My talk page is not the proper place to discuss this. If this article fails our biographies of living persons policy in some way, there is the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
3. Negative, but well-sourced, information is not forbidden on Wikipedia. If he actually was arrested, and that claim is covered in reliable sources, then Wikipedia does not forbid covering that content.
4. If you would like to nominate this article for deletion, we have a process for that at articles for deletion.

--B (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Rosemaryujoh: The source seems to be a reliable news site, at this point I'd say the claim stays. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I got it. Thanks all Rosemaryujoh (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

B-bot flags

B-bot currently has the "autochecked" flag, which, per Wikipedia:Autochecked users, should probably be removed, as the group does not grant any right not given to the "autoconfirmed" group. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed it. I guess I don't see the reason the flag even exists then. --B (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A request

I was wondering if you can revive the page "Kevin Tolibao" I understand that you deleted the page because the article dont have references. i have a reference to add now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yemyemyem (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yemyemyem: I have restored Kevin Tolibao and reset the timer. Please add your reference to the article. --B (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:F89-D Scorpion Air Force interceptor 1958.jpg

As you requested:

Ticket#: 2015050410022413

Samf4u (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Samf4u: Thanks, I have changed the "fair use rationale" to the regular information template so that bots won't consider the image to be non-free any more. I have added a tag that references the documentation of the PD status so that in case there is ever a question, OTRS volunteers can review it. Lastly, I have restored the full-sized version. Since it's public domain, we don't need a smaller version. --B (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks. Now if I have any questions about photo use I know who to ask! Samf4u (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help. I fully understand that our image rules/procedures are extremely confusing. --B (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:His or her

Template:His or her has been nominated for merging with Template:Pronoun. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:Orphaned non-free image File:Let Every Child Have Both Parents.png

Thankyou. The image was replaced with another image (which is used on its original page). Could an administrator please delete it? --Green WU (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2015

•  Done @Green WU: FYI, for future reference, no reply is necessary - with these images, an administrator will automatically delete them after seven days if they are still orphaned at that time. Also, when leaving a new message on a talk page, please leave it at the bottom of the page. There is a button at the top of the page (up with the tabs) that says "New section". --B (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

re: Orphaned files

I remember when we had to tag the pictures manually, none of these fancy robots or twinkly scripts, and if you tell that to the young people today, they won't believe you. Thanks for the heads up. :) James086^Talk 00:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox college football single game mini header

Template:Infobox college football single game mini header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bishop's Stortford FC.svg

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

Now check the API: [1]

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

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

Possibly related to [2]? I had had a problem un-revdeleting a file and reported it. In this case, I was able to view the deleted file, download it, and re-upload it. They say they fixed the bug, but I assume that the fix was in the initial delete operation, meaning anything broken by the bug is still broken.

On File:Bishop's Stortford FC.svg, the first revision (7:28, 31 May 2009) shows up as black to me - the image revision is not available for me to un-rev-delete and if I hit the "del/undel" button, it doesn't show up as rev deleted. If you look at the page logs, Explicit had a problem with the image in 2012 and apparently tried restoring something to solve it. I can see the version from 9:17, 31 May 2009 using the normal admin stuff and it looks just like a larger version of the image we have now.

It used to be, in the olden days, if an image was deleted, it was gone. Then, one of the trolling message boards decided that they would try to troll Wikipedia by tagging images for deletion that shouldn't be deleted. So the software was very quickly modified to allow for images to be undeleted, but it has always been kinda buggy, particularly if an image stays deleted for a long time. Revdelete didn't used to exist and before revdelete, you had to delete everything, then selectively restore what you wanted restored. It is possible that someone deleted the whole thing, then the restore didn't work because (reasons) and now we're stuck with a bad revision.

If the examples of this are few enough, maybe what we just do is delete the whole thing and then restore all of it except for the bad orphaned version? That way, your bot won't think there is something that needs to be deleted. --B (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what is causing this or whether it is related to phabricator:T97222 or not, but something should be done. I don't know if I should change my bot (or how I should change it – the revision is reported by the server as a normal revision which hasn't been deleted).

There are probably other files with the same problem hiding somewhere. Based on the way the admin script apparently handles the revision deletion, these should show up in the first few edits my bot does on the days on which admins have tried deleting the old revisions. I found no other problem files by looking at the first few bot edits from today and yesterday. One way to get around the problem is to simply add a "bots" or "nobots" template, but that doesn't solve the original problem and would prevent the addition of {{subst:orfurrev}} if additional revisions are uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I deleted it to purge that revision from history (the old fashioned way). When I deleted it, there is now a blue link in the revision listing at Special:Undelete/File:Bishop's_Stortford_FC.svg (which should let me view the revision). Interestingly, it tells me that the image was 612 × 792 and 29,565 bytes - info that we did not know before - but when I click on it, it gives me this error: "Although this PHP script (/w/index.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-swift-eqiad/local-deleted/k/m/l/kmlt69k6l63cayj6kjvmytp7umavvb6.svg) does not." I have restored it without the bad version. --B (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Very strange... Maybe it should be reported in phabricator:, unless it already has been reported. Thanks for fixing this file! --Stefan2 (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Another one to take a look at is File:Sprint Nextel logo.svg as the revision from 2007 might have this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stefan2: This one looks like a different problem. Notably, the API [3] doesn't include this broken revision. I deleted the other two old ones so this one looks to be good as is - I'm assuming that it won't trigger the query any more? If it does, let me know and I can do the same "old fashioned" delete/undelete. --B (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I regenerated quarry:query/1226 and found that the file still is reported by the database as having an orphaned revision. On the other hand, the API doesn't mention that revision at all. My bot is supposed to check that the file has orphaned revisions according to both the API and the database, so I guess the bot won't tag that file again, but the situation is weird. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, I removed the corrupted revision the old fashioned way. I get the same behavior now - it shows me that the deleted revision is "501 × 194 (9,322 bytes)", but if I try to view it, I get "Although this PHP script (/w/index.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-swift-eqiad/local-deleted/7/b/5/7b5q3dm5zupbenpbs429mivucnercql.svg) does not.". --B (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• More: File:Try sample.ogg and File:WOFL open.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stefan2: File:Try sample.ogg had the same problem - I deleted it and restored it without the broken revision. File:WOFL open.png does not appear to have been the same problem. I can view all of the revisions. There was one deleted old version - I have restored it and then used revision hiding to remove both from public view. --B (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• More: File:RAF logo.svg & File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg & File:Kdbc 2012.png. What is causing these strange revisions? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stefan2:  Done. In all three of these, it looks like revdelete was previously used to get rid of the revision in question. But somehow, it became un-revdeleted, but with the file still missing. I have no explanation. --B (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Today's files: File:Hockey India League Logo.jpg & File:Nanjing University Logo.svg & File:Holger Czukay - Radio Wave Surfer.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• And today's files: File:NFS Most Wanted (2012) gameplay.png & File:NFS Most Wanted (2012) gameplay.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stefan2:  Done. That last one - File:NFS Most Wanted (2012) gameplay.png - is listed twice. Was there a different one you had intended to list? Oddly, with this one, when I deleted the file and then looked at it using Special:Undelete, the missing revision was now visible again and I was able to view it. (Normally, when we do this, I get the error described above - "Although this PHP script (/w/index.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-swift-eqiad/local-deleted/k/m/l/kmlt69k6l63cayj6kjvmytp7umavvb6.svg) does not.". So I removed that revision using revdelete and restored the whole thing. Since you had it listed twice and I had already opened it in two different windows, I was able to confirm, just to make sure I wasn't crazy, that it had showed up with a black link prior to me deleting it. So oddly, somehow, deleting it seems to have re-associated it with the deleted revision. --B (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Copy and paste error: I meant to list two different files. I don't remember the name of the other file, but it should show up again in a week, so let's just skip it for now. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Two more: File:RHS logo.png and File:TMG - Highway Dont Care cover.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done --B (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Another one: File:Black Arrow (telefilm).jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done --B (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do you know what's wrong with File:Fly SAX-logo.jpg? There is a 'revert' button but it isn't possible to see the old revision. The timestamp is in bold whereas the timestamp of the other files mentioned above wasn't in bold. Note that both revisions have exactly the same timestamp, meaning that they were both uploaded on the same second. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stefan2:  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)

Ivide.jpg issue

Your bot B-bot informed me about deletion of the non-free file Ivide.jpg. The problem is that one anonymous user removes the particular image from the article Ivide. The image is taken from official facebook page of the film. So consider the protection of article or blocking the user. --Alfasst (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alfasst: Have you attempted to discuss it with the person? He seems to believe that this is a fan-made poster, not an official one. Are you sure that [4] isn't the official poster? That Facebook thread has a lot of things in it made by other people (e.g. [5]) but [6] was posted several times, once with the caption "Poster is here" and once with "Official Teaser". --B (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an IP user. So it is not a good idea to contact the user. The image is taken from Official FB page as I stated earlier. There are a lot of posters in that page. So we can't say that any of them is fan-made. --Alfasst (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

New Horizons countdown template

The countdown template, which was among things you deleted at New Horizons, is under discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11#Template:Countdown-ymd. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And? It has no business being used in an article. None whatsoever. The existence of a discussion is not a license to use obviously unencyclopedic content for an extra week. --B (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might want to give your opinion there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Yes, I already did give my opinion there. I thought you were objecting to the removal of the template while the discussion was ongoing. My mistake. --B (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago on the New Horizon talk page, I objected to exactly the material you removed today. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Engineers Country Club .jpg

Hi, would you mind me redeleting this one right away? I've had to delete various reincarnations of this pic about half a dozen times; it was clear from the outset that the permission mail didn't contain a proper license and that none was forthcoming; I've explained to the uploader three or four times what a proper license would be and his reaction on the file page now shows he still doesn't get it (I've actually had to use block warnings before to stop him from re-uploading the pic yet more times). I really don't feel like having to monitor this for yet another week for yet another round of {di-no-permission}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. --B (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

About my User:Sun Kids G page

You have blanked my user page that I am working on draft article. The user named Davey2010 annoying me by reverting my edits of article Chutti TV on which I am working since five years and adding true content to page, to the version he wanted and also blocked my previous account indefinitely.so please don't blank the page.I will not use categories as per your wish.Please help me from Davey2010 who unnecessarily reverting my edits again and again on the article Chutti TV.So that I can work once again on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Russell (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Spike Russell: Userspace drafts are not permitted as "alternate versions" of an article - they are only permitted when you are actually working on the article - and even then, they are not permitted to contain non-free images or categories. If there is a content dispute over this article, please see Wikipedia's dispute resolution page for some help with resolving it. If the dispute is only between you and one other person, a great option is to seek a third opinion, wherein a neutral editor will evaluate and consider your respective positions. --B (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I will seek a third opinion on the dispute of article Chutti TV.I will also work on User:Sun Kids G page without using non-free images and categories.I hope you will not blank User:Sun Kids G page again.Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Russell (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

B-bot's speedy-delete notice on File:Dark Horde symbol.png

Reference: this notice. I created both (1) the PNG and later (2) the preferred SVG version of this pic, having forty years earlier designed the logo for the organization. Now that the article points to the SVG, I have no strong objection to the PNG going away, as most browsers can render the SVG. I only left the PNG, rather than request its deletion myself, for the sake of whoever may still not be able to see SVGs, however few those may be. Should this not be a consideration? Does Wiki-software now convert SVGs to PNGs automatically for such readers? If so, I had just missed the update, and now I'll stop worrying about it. But if not.... – _•Raven  ^.talk 05:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @.Raven: When an SVG is used in an article, the Mediawiki software will automatically render it as a png in the correct size. If you find an SVG used in an article and right-click on it and hit view image info (or the equivalent in your browser of choice), it will tell you that it is a png. --B (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool! With that info, I utterly agree with a speedy-delete of the original PNG. Thanks! – _•Raven  ^.talk 06:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:VancouverAngels.png

Feel free to delete it. I only used it on an article I worked my ass out on but got deleted. — CÉDRIC: PROUDLY REGISTERED! 20:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Items with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS for over 30 days

We also have Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days (and 60 and 90 days) and a bunch of similar OTRS categories which currently aren't seperated into files vs. pages. We're you planning on splitting all of them up? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• @VernoWhitney: I don't have a strong preference on the subject. The reason I was fixing the {{OTRS received}} categories was more a matter of cleaning up my own mess than it was trying to change anything. The categories that existed for {{OTRS received}} before I started touching anything a few months ago were all named "Wikipedia files ..." or "Wikipedia pages ..." whereas the {{OTRS pending}} categories had always been named "Items ...". When I started creating the newer categories, I failed to be consistent in the naming conventions and so as a result, it was somewhat confusing. I can certainly see a usefulness in splitting them up since we're going to start a more regular process for deleting the files where no permission comes in, whereas the pages will always need manual review (since it might just be one section of the page that needs to be removed if we don't get permission confirmed). So I'm certainly not opposed to changing the {{OTRS pending}} categories to be consistent with the {{OTRS received}} ones, but I probably shouldn't do it unilaterally - it should be proposed at WP:OTRSN first. --B (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

K. C. Das Pvt Ltd. logo.jpg.

Thanks! I am currently working on the sand box for the particular article which had the logo. I will complete my full sources and citations in the next 48 hours and add the image back to its original article.AnimikhRoy967 (talk) AnimikhRoy967(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Un-delete a file?

Hello. Could you please un-delete File:Vincent Hubbard.jpg for me, please? I forgot to add it to an article, so it was orphaned. Much appreciated! — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@RachelRice:  Done - please add it to an article and make sure that there is a rationale for the desired article. It is worth noting that List of EastEnders characters (2015) (the article for which there is currently a rationale) is a list article and fair use images in lists of this type are viewed with a great deal of skepticism (why is it critical to the user's understanding - WP:NFCC#8 - that we have a photo of this character, but not some other character?) and there needs to be a really, really good reason if you are using it in a list article. --B (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay to have a logo on a Sandbox draft?

This is a placeholder image that I am using instead of a copyrighted image.

Hi B - I'm learning to create an infobox for a company, with a new article in my sandbox: HERE.

For the Logo ( LOGO PAGE) I was missing Licensing info, and my link to article was broken. I think (?) I've fixed that.

But it seems like the logo might still be deleted, because it's in my sandbox. Is that the case?

Thanks, Justapersona^{(Come talk!)} 03:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Justapersona: Images used under a claim of fair use can only be used in article space - not in drafts. The solution is to just leave it out (or use a placeholder) until you are ready to publish. If you want something there just to test out the layout, you could use just a plain red square. Then, when you are ready to copy the article to article space, you upload any fair use images you need and add them at that point. --B (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@B: Thank you. Can I leave all the metadata / page content? Just update the image file to a placeholder? Or, will that be confusing to people / admins? Thanks. Justapersona ^talk 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Justapersona: No, copy/paste the metadata somewhere (and comment it out or put it inside of <nowiki> ... </nowiki> tags) - the file and the file description page will be deleted (unless you submit your draft before the timer expires). For the placeholder, I mean that in your article draft, whereever you are using (or want to use) a copyrighted image, use a plain red box instead. Or you can use the placeholder image like the one to the right. Once you are ready to submit your article, five minutes before you move it from your user space into article space, you can re-upload the file, paste the metadata back in from wherever you saved it, and switch the reference in your draft from the placeholder to the real thing. --B (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@B: Great. Thank you for spelling it out. I really appreciate it. THIS ought to be on one of those myriad of "copyright" & "template" pages. Thank you. I won't be such a nuisance from now on. :-) Justapersona ^talk 03:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted a book cover image

Hi, you seem to have deleted this image: "File:Norman Dewis of Jaguar, book by Skilleter.jpg". Unfortunately I found no explanation for its removal on the talk page of Norman Dewis, the only article in which it appeared. Please explain. Thanks. Hotlorp (talk)

• @Hotlorp: - I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_March_25#File:Norman_Dewis_of_Jaguar.2C_book_by_Skilleter.jpg and the reasoning is there. (I did not actually delete it - another admin did.) Photos used under a claim of fair use are never permitted for living people per WP:NFCC#1. And even if he were deceased or infirmed, he was a very public figure in the United States for a long time and we have a reasonable expectation that a photo could be donated with an acceptable license or could be found to have been published without a copyright notice prior to 1978. --B (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned fair use files ExoKOverdose.jpg/ExoMOverdose.jpg

Hello B! I am fairly new to the Wiki scene & I have recently uploaded images of fair use resulting in your bot B-bot sending me 2 notices. I created the page Overdose (Exo album) since there was no page for Exo's extended play. From there, I uploaded those 2 images. Unfortunately, Random86 deleted my edits and changed the article to a redirect page. For now, I'll just make a draft for the EP, those images currently have no use to me. I am aware of Wiki's deletion policy and since you have admin privileges, you can go ahead and delete 'em! Idealtype 02:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealtype (talk • contribs)

If it continues to be unused when the timer expires, it will be deleted by an admin automatically. No further action is necessary. --B (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Edward Rayne.jpg

Thank you for the bot note and yes please do delete this image – it was used in accordance with fair use on the article Edward Rayne for a short period, but we decided it was safer and more in line with fair use guidelines to replace with an image minus Vivien Leigh. Thank you. Libby norman (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If it continues to be unused when the timer expires, it will be deleted by an admin automatically. No further action is necessary. --B (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For bravery and integrity during the Contribsx ArbCom case. Vordrak (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Johnny Helms

Greetings B,

Thanks for your interest in making the photo of Johnny legal. Unfortunately the picture was taken by Johnny's friend Terry Rosen who died in 1999.

I guess we'll just have to wait for another photo of Johnny to become available.

Thank you very kindly, JaneOlds (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@JaneOlds: Are you in contact with Terry Rosen's heirs? Someone inherited the copyright and that person could provide a suitable statement of permission, if they were so inclined. Also, as an alternative, I see that Johnny Helms was active beginning in the 1950s. If a photo of him was published in the United States without a copyright notice prior to January 1, 1978, then it is in the public domain. Frequently, for performers who were active in that time, there are concert programs or promotional materials and the like that are public domain due to failing to comply with the formalities. --B (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Important info on the pic of Johnny Helms

Greetings,

I just realized that the picture of Johnny was taken at the 1977 Spoleto Festival in Charleston. Johnny was on the program with Louis Bellson, who also appeared in the original photo, but was cropped from the pic for Johnny's article.

This picture is apparently in the public domain but the task of making it legal in the eyes of Wikipedia is beyond my skill level. Please help me with the "paperwork" if at all possible.

Thanks JaneOlds (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@JaneOlds: Do you have the original program in your possession? If so, can you scan it in and send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? You will get an automatic reply with a ticket number - if you post that ticket number here, I can take a look at it and process it. --B (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The only documentation I have is the original picture showing both Louis and Johnny. At this point I've already spent too much time on this issue and will just let the matter drop. JaneOlds (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Throughhell.jpg

Any idea why B-bot falsely flagged File:Throughhell.jpg as orphaned fair use? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: It didn't "falsely" flag it - the image was an orphan when it was tagged. Please look at the history of If You're Going Through Hell - it was vandalized on June 14 and the vandalism stayed in place just long enough for 24 hours to pass and it to get tagged as an orphan. (B-bot will only tag images that stay orphaned for three complete runs - it runs twice per day and so that means that a minimum of 24 hours have passed.) Please note that right before the seven-day timer expires, B-bot re-checks the category and so even if you had not removed the orfud tag, B-bot would have removed it six days from now. So as long as the vandalism is reverted within seven days, B-bot will clean up its own mess and when an admin goes to process the category, the image will no longer be tagged. (Admins should still check before deleting to make sure that the image is really an orphan because there is an off chance that someone might have added it back to an article in the few hours between when the bot checked and when someone processes the category.) --B (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS Pending Tags

You recently inquired as to whether I actually have permission from the copyright holders to use 4 x files that I have uploaded to Wikipedia. The answer in each case is yes I do. However:

1) File: "John Lousteau, Reed Mullin and Mick Murphy at Studio 606.jpg" was used in an article that was declined and I no longer wish to pursue for publication. Hence sending permission for use is moot and the file can be deleted. I looked to try and delete it myself, but can find no link/option to do so.

2) The copyright holders for files "Mick Murphy - Photo by Gary Bandfield TourBusLive.jpg", "Mick Murphy - Chevy Metal - Photo by Gary Bandfield Tour Bus Live.jpg" and "Mick Murphy TripleM GJ2 - Photo by Gary Bandfield Tour Bus Live.jpg" have asked that I amend the file names themselves to remove 'Gary Bandfield' from the file name. As far as I can see, I don't think it is possible for me to edit the file names once the files are uploaded, so would be grateful if they can be deleted. I will then re-upload with the amended filenames. Once the changes have been made, the copyright holders are then happy to e-mail the appropriate waiver to the permissions e-mail address.

Hopefully that clarifies the situation. Burlington Bert (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Burlington Bert: I have deleted File:John Lousteau, Reed Mullin and Mick Murphy at Studio 606.jpg. I have moved the other photos to File:Mick Murphy.jpg, File:Mick Murphy - Chevy Metal.jpg, and File:Mick Murphy TripleM GJ2.jpg. I have checked our ticketing system and there is nothing mentioning Mick Murphy. Please ask the copyright holder to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org using the template at WP:CONSENT. Please note that the email needs to come from an address that we can verify as his (e.g. one listed at tourbuslive.com). Alternatively, he could post a copy of the statement of permission somewhere at tourbuslive.com or on his Facebook page and let us know in his email that he has done so. (The purpose of this exercise is to make sure that we respect the rights of copyright holders by preventing someone from falsely claiming to "license" their works.) When he submits the email, he will receive a reply with a ticket number. If he gives you that ticket number and you post it here, I can process the email immediately. (There is currently a 0-day backlog in the queue.) --B (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Logos for teams out of business

Hi,

B-bot notified me that I have a couple of orphaned files ( File:Colorado Altitude NPF logo.png and File:San Antonio Armadillos NPF logo.png ) They're orphans because someone else commented them out from the article I had them in: 2004 National Pro Fastpitch season. The Colorado Altitude and San Antonio Armadillos were teams that were announced as members of the NPF for the league's first season in 2004. They participated in the league's first drafts, but dropped out of the league before play began and had their draftees reallocated.

There's a section describing this in the 2004 article, and I put their logos in that section. It seems to me that the 2004 article is the only place those teams would be mentioned since they never played and never rejoined the league although they hoped to. Since the teams folded (and I can't find them in trademarkia.com), I wonder if their logos are even non-free any more.

I guess my question is if it's okay to put those logos back into the 2004 article?

Jjwyatt (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jjwyatt: one note for clarification, when B-bot tags an image as orphaned fair use, it is doing so without any sort of judgment on whether or not removing the image was the right thing. If the image is re-added to an article, B-bot will automatically remove the tag the night before it is due to be deleted (or you can remove the tag yourself if desired). To answer your question, in my experience, as a general rule, former team logos are frowned on unless they are the subject of sourced commentary. For example, Logo of NBC shows lots of former logos of NBC and each one is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UUI has a list of unacceptable logos and one of them is "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable." In other words, if there is a separate article on the child entity or, in this case, the former team, then you can use the logo there, but should not do so if the content about that former team is a part of the main article about the current team. --B (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

File:JohnnyHelmsJazzTrumpeter.png

B:

Please delete this photo as soon as possible so I can get it off my mind. I've tried my best to make it "legal" but have had no success in finding and verifying the needed information. Thanks for your help. JaneOlds (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done --B (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS Pending for E. R. Moon and Pacific Christian Hospital

The OTRS Pending for these two articles were for the pictures (.jpg) not the text. Both of these were approved in February 2015. Moon was Ticket#2015010710020373 while the Hospital was Ticket#2015010710020408. I thought the OTRS Pending has already been removed, if not it should be ASAP. Tbergquist (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tbergquist: Okay, thanks. I have removed both tags. FYI, the tag for an image permission only needs to go on the File: page, not the an article page. --B (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Paul White, photo by Owen Richards.jpg

A ticket you were working on regarding the file, has a new ticket with the permission for the file usage. It could be seen at ticket:2015062310009543, you can feel free to merge them. Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT: Merged, thanks. --B (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

OTRS

Please, take a look on this. The same files was handled by you. Willy Weazley 03:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Willy Weazley:. Look more closely at 2015062510017423. This ticket is for a totally unrelated image. The ticket is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Neptune.png even though when you click on it, it incorrectly takes you to File:Randy Barth.png. It looks like Timtempleton (talk · contribs) uploaded both photos and he probably just accidentally made the URL link to the wrong thing when he copied/pasted the email for them to send. But the ticket you are working is for a completely different image depicting a completely different person who runs a completely different organization. --B (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct - my bad - I'm cutting and pasting the text to help the copyright holders send permissions for the images I'm uploading.Timtempleton (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@L235: It doesn't hugely matter since I go months at a time without hitting the block button, but could you please spell out who the "named parties" are? --B (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

They are the parties as listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement#Involved_parties. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice

... to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: You as well. --B (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello B. I very much appreciate your posts at arbitration enforcement talk page. Especially this one. The whole thing was odd to me when I posted last night but I have had zero involvement at AE. As I read through everything that has been added since I went to sleep it seems to have reached the point of "we took the action" "We didn't do anything wrong" "don't expect an apology or a fix to the wording" which is sad. Last week was crazy and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 15:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I have seen absurd actions from arbcom before, but never anything this ridiculous. I have long believed that the elected arbitration committee needs to be done away with and it needs to be more like a jury model where disputes are adjudicated by 12 randomly selected Wikipedians. We have created a separate super-class of users who behave with dictatorial powers. Consider this ridiculous pronouncement from Thryduulf (talk · contribs) [7]: "This is necessary to stop any more drama, and by definition therefore a good idea." It's neither necessary, nor does it stop drama, nor is it a good idea. (The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.) Certainly, ArbCom has the power to do what they have done, but they do not have the power to proclaim their decision to be "right". If I make an edit, I am doing what I think is right, but my belief that it is right does not make it so. That privilege of your word not only being law, but also being "right" is one that belongs only to God ... or possibly to kings ... but definitely not to Wikipedia arbiters. --B (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as a formality...

What you proposed here is more of a temporary injunction. I have moved it to the temporary injunction section as a clerk action, in case you can't find it later. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Penwhale: I have no objection and did not originally put it there because I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that that section was only for named parties. --B (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Noted. --B (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)