Ronhjones' Navigation bar

Home

Talk (Archives)

Contributions

EditCount

Sandbox

Sandbox2

Awards

Userboxes

Gallery

CSDlog

Subpages

Adminship

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

There are a large number of pictures that I took myself to contribute to Wikipedia that got deleted due to copyright reasons, including some from my book, "Intelligent Image Processing", and some that I just took on my rooftop blue roof + green roof space. Can you help me understand why they were deleted?

Hi, you recently tagged one of my uploads as F11. I have no issues on that if it violates the policy. Do I upload another file from another source and remove the tags or let this file be deleted and upload the "issue-less" file with another name instead. ‑‑V.S.(C)(T)

Hi Ron

Thank you for the help.

Would you be able to help me get the photo added?

I am not an authorized user.

Thank you. BlaineParker (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlaineParker: You need a free photo of the dog. I would ask its owner for an image they will release under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Free images can be uploaded at commons c:Commons:Upload. A non-free image would not be allowed here until the dog is deceased, as it would be deemed replaceable. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron

Thank you. I tried adding my own image. It is freezing up saying I need to add a license. I am LOST!!

BlaineParker (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlaineParker:Are you using the Wizard? c:Special:UploadWizard? You have to pick which license you want to release the copyright - typical one to use is cc-by-sa-4.0, which is the most strict license we allow. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wax nostalgically for the nascent days of Wiki. It was lovely when it didn't take itself so seriously. Bring back the Wild West. When I started in '04, there were few rules, and I've always wished it would have stayed that way. The occasional piece of juvenile vandalism that went undiscovered for way too long was worth it. The bureaucracy makes this endeavor feel like the workplace. While the site may have more content than before the Great Fair Use Purge, the fun died in '07. More photos make things unequivocally better. Wiki should be factual AND vivacious; this isn't a dry academic journal. The perpetual tightening of the corporate noose is not progress. The thrill is gone, Lucille. (I've never uploaded to Commons, and I never plan on it. I also still use the old school upload form. That process never should have changed.) Mr. Vitale (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I saw that tagged the picture i uploaded to Here I tried to upload a smaller photo of it and it was (png/image) can you help me. A.R.M. 04:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ARMcgrath: The banner is just an advisory. As it says the reduction is done every day automatically. Nothing to do. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got a message from your RonBot today, part of which read, "...A formula for calculation the desired size..." etc. I think it is supposed to say, "...A formula for calculating the desired size..." or maybe "...A formula for calculation of the desired size...", but whichever it is, you might want to clear that up! Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A loose noose: I probably wrote that a bit quick... ! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes Galobtter Orangemike BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange Bureaucrat changes Addshore

CheckUser changes Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime Oversight changes AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Hi Ronhjones, Greetings to you. I came across this articles when I was reviewing AfC and added 4 sources to the article. I found out that I cant accept the page due to the title is protected as the title has been repeatedly recreated without providing sources - [1] . Since I added some sources, would this title be lifted from protection and I would proceed to accept this page into mainspace? Also may I know which editors repeatedly resubmit the article so I may advise them what should be done so next time they would know what to do. Thank in advance and happy new year. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: It was moved to draft 3 times, and each time the creator blanked the page and re-created in mainspace. He was told - User talk:A.lanzetta - you'll have to look in the history as he blanks the messages. So I salted the page on the 4th move to Draft to stop the endless move war. I'll take off the protection for you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronhjones, Good day. Thank you for lifting the salt. I will proceed to accept the article into mainspace after this message. The editor is a active MMA editor in Wikipedia and has been around since 2008. He also created more than 100 pages in mainspace. I am surprise he continued to recreate the article without providing independent, reliable sources. I doubt he doesnt understand the requirements needed for article to be accepted to the mainspace, yet to find sources for this title is not that hard as this MMA promotion/competition is well covered by the press since this promotion was a merge of 2 regional promotions in 2016 where they had been around for sometimes. I will write a message to them to explain the situation and hope this would not happen again as it cause some editor the time and effort to R2 and salt the title. Thank you and have a happy new year. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a clash between two bots. E.g. Words per minute has:

• (cur | prev) 14:30, 1 January 2019‎ ImageRemovalBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,110 bytes) -298‎ . . (Removing external link used as image) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 01:01, 1 January 2019‎ RonBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,408 bytes) +16‎ . . ((Task 12) Adding BrokenImage (disable)) (undo)

I have found a few like this or similar. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twiceuponatime: It appears that the addition of [[File:..... which is not a working image will cause wiki to log that in the category for missing files, RonBot12 (on trial - now stopped as trial period ended) added BrokenImage to flag up the error (and hopefully get the last person to edit to fix it). Then along comes ImageRemovalBot who find an external linked image and removes it. The plan would be that RonBot12 would then remove the template as the problem is fixed - but it's stopped awaiting the BRFA review. I've removed the template manually. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check/update the copyright stauts of my image? I edited the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minetest_Game_Screenshot_Late_2018_5.0.0-dev.png Cddepppp256 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cddepppp256: Fine, there's an extra field for permissions one can use in the {{information}} box, so I've moved it there. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is still not ok, teh delete it. Cddepppp256 (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cddepppp256: It's Fine. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron. Would you change summary: 'Previous version(s) deleted per [[WP:F5|F5]])', to summary: 'Previous version(s) deleted per [[WP:F5|F5]]', in order to remove the unbalanced ) at the end? — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89:  Done Looks like I copied the bug from User:Legoktm/rescaled.js. My script just has a slightly different ReEgEx. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To whom this may concern

I am a first Nation Mi'kmaq status native from New Brunswick please note that there is a distinction between lower case metis and upper case Metis. It should be noted that is is a fact that the noun metis was coined by people of European descent prior to any colonization in Canada. It was used first in Canada by Acadians in it's original sense. Lower case metis is translated directly to halfbreed because that is the meaning of the word. It is being challenged that metis and Metis are of the same. However someone who is metis may not have any aboriginal ancestry at all. Please see that any blocking of editing is not donE in order to further any historical revisionism due to a misuse of a term. Sylvia Moranda Benoit BFA lower case metis/ Acadian/ and Mi'kmaq Adanrom (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All pages are constructed by a consensus of editors, no one owns a page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronhjones, a bot you operate, RonBot, has been recentlly adding Category:Association footballers not categorized by position where the category of the footballer's position is already present. See here, here and here. This has the potential to be disruptive, so I ask you to please fix the problem if it is present. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]