Question on non-free license detection[edit]

Related to File:Littleprince.JPG, the bot picked this up as a non-free despite that it is PD image. My gut is that it is picking up that the first license template seen, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} belongs in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates, though in reality, this specific template is not really a license file. I think the fix is more on fixing the categorization, but I want to make sure if that's how the bot is making the determination. --Masem (t) 00:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Fastily. This is related to a discussion about the file that Masem and I were having at User talk:Masem#File:Littleprince.JPG. The file is licensed as {{PD-old-70}}, but someone boldly added {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} to the file's page the other day which seems to why Fastily bot, JJMC89 bot, and the old betacommand bot are suddenly treating it as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem & Marchjuly. My bot uses the category Category:All non-free media to determine whether a file is non-free. It appears that any transclusions of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} add this category. I can't speak to behavior of the other mentioned bots though. -FASTILY 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily and Masem: I asked JJMC89 about this at User talk:JJMC89#File:Littleprince.JPG licensing question and he responded. I guess what needs to be figured out is whether the adding of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} was appropriate. I haven't queried the user who added the template yet, but their contributions indicate there a relatively new account and pretty much all their edits so far have been in the file namespace. Although I think it was done in good faith, I also think you should add a corresponding non-free license and non-free use rationale to a file's page if you're going to add the URAA template to the page. Right now, the file is lacking non-free license and non-free use rationale which means it can technically be deleted per F4 and F6 if the PD license is really invalid. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hey Fastily! I hope you are well. I am considering reapplying for the rollback right in a few days or so since it has been about a month since my last. I have really enjoyed patrolling recent changes with twinkle etc and have now made several reverts and warned editors who have made unhelpful contributions. Is there anything else you would suggest to improve the chance of my request being accepted? Kind Regards, Blanchey 💬 • 📝 12:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blanchey. I haven't performed an in-depth review, but I did see a couple unusual things. First, what were you attempting to accomplish with this revert? It didn't remove any vandalism. Also, where are you archiving your talk page to? As far as I can tell, you're just deleting messages. Regards, FASTILY 02:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. In terms of the revert, I was trying to restore the content since someone had put emojis. I assumed it was a test edit although it seems that multiple users had been editing so it wouldn’t let me get back the the last good version. I will admit, I should have used ‘restore this revision’ instead on the last good version, so that was my fault. As for the talk page blanking, I archive messages after a few days, although I do this myself and not use lowercase sigma bot or anything like that. Is this problematic? Thanks Blanchey 💬 • 📝 08:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored the last good version on that page. Sorry for not doing so originally. Blanchey 💬 • 📝 08:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misread your question about the talk page, I am only archiving it in the page history although if it would be favourable to start an archive, I’d be more than happy to do so. Blanchey 💬 • 📝 08:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you could start a proper archive, that would be great. Thanks, FASTILY 22:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done it took some time, although I think it’s working now. I even retrieved all my old discussions too. Blanchey 💬 • 📝 06:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notabilty and not disclosure[edit]

Hi Fastily, the entry Uri de Beer was written by a single purpose account. The same username written the corresponding Hebrew entry at the Hebrew wiki and disclose he is a paid editor. But what is important is that I think Uri de Beer is not a notable art personality. The sources are mostly shreds of mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:81:A8F6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the tip! I've nominated the page for deletion. Regards, FASTILY 02:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a user and an article that has been deleted previous[edit]

Hello FASTILY. I want to make a complain, I was in the new page patrol section and I was reviewing some articles and I found out that a user is using multiple account to make edits and promote a page that has been deleted and I feel this user have removed deletion tags and notability tags serval times. This page Alabi Oyinkansola created by Sandysoil719 should be deleted and protected from creation. A major contributor to this article is giving an impression that his paid for editing and also for sockpupperty, I think he is Areara202. Please this is what I discovered, thanks Demiles224 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Demiles224. This probably needs a formal investigation, I recommend filing a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Regards, FASTILY 23:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Demiles224 has been editing on Wikipedia a little over four hours, and I've found it necessary to revert maybe half their edits (unhelpful links, inappropriate article templates, etc), to the tune of giving them a level three warning for disruption. They ought to be familiarizing themselves with the guidelines and working on basic grammar, rather than attempting to chase down socks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Duffy(Snooker)[edit]

You deleted Craig Duffy(Snooker), which was a talk page probably accidentally moved to this title. The move can be reversed and the history restored. I have also tagged Talk:Craig F Duffy in case someone else does it earlier. Jay (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have reversed it. Jay (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]